Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Daily Mail)   Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain   ( dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Scary, Britain, samurai sword, samurai  
•       •       •

25155 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 1:57 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-25 12:04:31 AM  
Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.
 
2012-12-25 12:10:49 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim


Injured. Not killed, even.
 
2012-12-25 12:11:11 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Not "any" other weapon, but access to planes is well regulated.
 
2012-12-25 12:19:08 AM  

SnarfVader: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Not "any" other weapon, but access to planes is well regulated.


Touché
 
2012-12-25 12:36:52 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...
 
2012-12-25 12:54:38 AM  

Elzar: This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms.


I've got bare arms right now! Come at me bro!
 
2012-12-25 01:12:03 AM  
i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size


In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.
 
2012-12-25 01:37:01 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:00 AM  
ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:26 AM  
Since when is a gas mask a weapon ?
 
2012-12-25 02:04:56 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


We prefer our attacks supersized, with cheese.
 
2012-12-25 02:05:47 AM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


They did make the crimes heck of a lot easier to accomplish, though.
 
2012-12-25 02:06:18 AM  
Maybe if he didn't have a shiatty piece of Chinese stainless steel he might have done more.

Not that doing more would have a good thing. I'm just saying he had a terrible mail order sword.
 
2012-12-25 02:06:24 AM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


violence:crashing::sword:bike::gun:regional jet
 
2012-12-25 02:08:06 AM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.



Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.
 
2012-12-25 02:09:52 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Well in all fairness to the gun-obsessed culture of the US, humans ARE animals.


/Just sayin'
 
2012-12-25 02:09:59 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
 
2012-12-25 02:11:48 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


Driving is a privilege, not a right.
 
2012-12-25 02:12:11 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.
 
2012-12-25 02:13:08 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.
 
2012-12-25 02:14:09 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.
 
2012-12-25 02:14:20 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-12-25 02:14:46 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


Correct but you also don't need a license to purchase a car only to legally operate. And a suspended license doesn't forfeit the vehicle just means you can't legally operate it. And if a car didnt have a driver it would just sit there... just like a gun. So your line of reasoning makes no sense.
 
2012-12-25 02:15:03 AM  

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


Yes, but we can't ruin his little fantasies now can we?
 
2012-12-25 02:15:06 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Since when is a gas mask a weapon ?


Well, if you put a scope and a folding stock on it ...
 
2012-12-25 02:15:39 AM  

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


I don't care if he is the president, I'm gonna finish, first.
 
2012-12-25 02:16:08 AM  
Seasons greetings, C*ntmitter.
 
2012-12-25 02:16:46 AM  

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...
 
2012-12-25 02:16:50 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Done in two.

This is as stupid as the folks saying "Hey look, 12 people got stabbed in China but lived...that's why we shouldn't have any gun regulations".
 
2012-12-25 02:17:02 AM  

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


Afterwards, however...
 
2012-12-25 02:17:15 AM  

phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.



So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.
 
2012-12-25 02:18:07 AM  

JSam21: Look at Lybia...


Yes please!

/Oh wait...I misread that
 
2012-12-25 02:18:36 AM  

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


You think the US is going to nuke itself?? Please stop the crazy talk. And just look at how well Afghanistan has fought back since 1979 against Russia and now against the United States. Small arms DO make a difference.

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


Why do anti-gun people make everything about sex??
 
2012-12-25 02:19:23 AM  

Triumph: In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Will you look at the size of that mallet? It must have been at least four quid.
 
2012-12-25 02:19:58 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Keep living that fantasy man. And don't forget to contribute to your HOA on time. And remember: no visible clotheslines. You're living in the land of the free, after all. Don't want no washing showing.
 
2012-12-25 02:20:57 AM  
Totally an apples to apples comparison here. Yessir.
 
2012-12-25 02:21:16 AM  

kmmontandon: The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


No sense in worrying yourself about encroaching tyranny, citizen.
 
2012-12-25 02:21:21 AM  

kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.
 
2012-12-25 02:22:14 AM  

NateAsbestos: Totally an apples to apples comparison here. Yessir.


Well you see in one case, people died. And in the other case (this one), people didn't die.

It's a perfect example of how sucky subby's critical thinking skills are.
 
2012-12-25 02:22:33 AM  
Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.
 
2012-12-25 02:23:20 AM  
Local resident Steven Oltay, 19, said he thought he heard the attack take place from his flat nearby.
He said: 'I was woken up last night by a woman screaming.
'Horrific screams, like an animal.
'I thought it was someone being murdered and almost ran out but decided against it.'


What a civilized society.
 
2012-12-25 02:23:53 AM  

Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.


So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?
 
2012-12-25 02:24:26 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.


Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?
 
2012-12-25 02:25:32 AM  
In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?
 
2012-12-25 02:26:21 AM  

JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.


I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.
 
2012-12-25 02:26:28 AM  

simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?


Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.
 
2012-12-25 02:26:55 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war
 
2012-12-25 02:27:07 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Because they're irrational and paranoid idiots?
 
2012-12-25 02:28:06 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war


Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo isn't going to happen.

Sorry guys.
 
2012-12-25 02:29:21 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.
 
2012-12-25 02:30:06 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war


So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?
 
2012-12-25 02:30:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?


The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Some troops would defect. Others won't. I'm not going to just hope that the side I personally support comes out ahead in the numbers game. Why not hedge your bet with some extra support??

And again, the threat of violence often means you don't have to use it.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:03 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


It's so adorable how you think your Glock or even AR-15 will protect you from the NSA/CIA/FBI/whatever. Please, go on masturbating to your dreams of overthrowing a Democracy gone wrong.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:35 AM  
A two foot long samurai sword?

i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size

Paging Therion or another expert: please identify that piece of metal?
 
2012-12-25 02:32:07 AM  

OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?


The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.
 
2012-12-25 02:32:26 AM  
"Zero killed in non-mass spree non-shooting. Suspect disarmed by unarmed cop"
i2.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 02:32:37 AM  

OddLlama: So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?


i.qkme.meView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 02:32:54 AM  

zarberg: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

It's so adorable how you think your Glock or even AR-15 will protect you from the NSA/CIA/FBI/whatever. Please, go on masturbating to your dreams of overthrowing a Democracy gone wrong.


Funny, because the FBI uses Glocks and AR-15s.
 
2012-12-25 02:32:56 AM  

Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.


There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:36 AM  
GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:47 AM  
Hey, even with socialized medicine, ASBOs, and legislation about even knives, crazy people are still crazy.

Oh, and why hasn't this been up yet?
farm2.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 02:34:13 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

You think the US is going to nuke itself?? Please stop the crazy talk. And just look at how well Afghanistan has fought back since 1979 against Russia and now against the United States. Small arms DO make a difference. Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.

Why do anti-gun people make everything about sex??


Make love, not war. :)
 
2012-12-25 02:35:23 AM  

kmmontandon:
The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


hint: we weren't a colony when the Second Amendment was written.
 
2012-12-25 02:35:26 AM  
Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.
 
2012-12-25 02:36:34 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


This...
 
2012-12-25 02:36:59 AM  

JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.


What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.
 
2012-12-25 02:37:30 AM  

Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.


All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:21 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


I was being snarky (Athough if you are trying to downplay the role slavery played in the war, well, whatever floats your boat, I'm not here to argue.). My original question was an honest one. There is not a single soldier I know including those in my family, that would go to war against american civilians for ANY reason.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:28 AM  
For all the "Obama is coming for our gunz" whackjobs here on FARK (you know who you are):

http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=obammer-part-1


Read that and the next two days of comics.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:40 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?
 
2012-12-25 02:39:27 AM  

simkatu: Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.


Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.
 
2012-12-25 02:39:49 AM  
Man is killed by a crossbow bolt passing directly through his heart. The detectives arrive. One of them finds the fatal crossbow bolt lieing near the body. Donning gloves, one detective carefully picks up the bolt, and begins to examine it. A few seconds later he starts to laugh, quietly at first. But within seconds, he is roaring with laughter.The other detective is at a loss.

"What's so funny?"
The laughing cop can barely speak....
"Take.....take this....over to Ballistics...."

/Well, the lab techs at Forensic Sciences thought it was funny...
 
2012-12-25 02:40:23 AM  

OddLlama: I was being snarky (Athough if you are trying to downplay the role slavery played in the war, well, whatever floats your boat, I'm not here to argue.).


Every libtard knows that it was clearly a war of Northern Aggression and the rights of the Southern States to secede because they wanted to keep slaves.
 
2012-12-25 02:44:44 AM  
Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?
 
2012-12-25 02:47:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Done in two.

This is as stupid as the folks saying "Hey look, 12 people got stabbed in China but lived...that's why we shouldn't have any gun regulations".


It was 22. But yeah.


Mrtraveler01: Oh look this lame talking point again:


Thanks for saving me the trouble with that one.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:07 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?

Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.


Nobody is proposing any laws to take away our guns. Not even our AR-15s. They are proposing to stop the new sales of assault rifles, but this mythical gun ban of existing guns isn't ever going to happen here. Not without an Amendment or a new Supreme Court. Obviously we can restrict arm sales. You can't just go buy flame throwers, napalm, or whatever else you want with no restrictions.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:22 AM  

Marcintosh: Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.


i keep seeing more and more arguments like this recently. if the gubbmint really got too big for its britches, would you really just roll over and beg 'not too hard please'? i have no fantasies about making a last stand against a squad and an IFV, armed with a semiautomatic rifle, but why do you think the government at least makes a half-assed attempt at trying to keep itself in line?
 
2012-12-25 02:48:58 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.


Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month... for my safety and the safety of anyone I'm around in the chance I have to dischagre my weapon while on duty.
 
2012-12-25 02:50:17 AM  

mediaho: Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?


Gun nuts are overreacting and paranoid.

Also the sky is blue and water is wet.
 
2012-12-25 02:51:59 AM  

Mrtraveler01: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

Because they're irrational and paranoid idiots?


Or maybe because it's happened in every country of every political persuasion from Nazi to Commie to true blue American. General Pershing led US troops against US citizens who had peaceably assembled and petitioned the government, both of which are rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 
2012-12-25 02:52:30 AM  

JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...


Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.
 
2012-12-25 02:55:35 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


Let me guess. You are white and think that the South just fought for states rights and didn't really care if slavery was abolished, they
just wanted to do it at the state level?
 
2012-12-25 02:56:10 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...

Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.


Ok... so then whats the problem? Background check was done and its a legal purchase
 
2012-12-25 02:56:14 AM  

OscarTamerz: General Pershing


You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.
 
2012-12-25 02:56:41 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Keep living that fantasy man. And don't forget to contribute to your HOA on time. And remember: no visible clotheslines. You're living in the land of the free, after all. Don't want no washing showing.


Oh Jesus, the Netherlands? Really? Speaking of dirty laundry hanging out, we hosted your Nazi-descended Queen in Chantilly VA this year. She spent four days shacked up at the Marriott trying to covertly influence the world through the Bilderberg meeting. Would ya do us all a favor and have a proper revolution to rid the world of her bullshiat?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:06 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...

Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.


Or is it just about where you can buy guns or whats checked in a background check?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:46 AM  

OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.


I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.
 
2012-12-25 03:00:29 AM  
Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.
 
2012-12-25 03:02:29 AM  

Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.


May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"
 
2012-12-25 03:02:42 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: simkatu: Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.

Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.


Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.
 
2012-12-25 03:02:44 AM  

CthulhuCalling: OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.

I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.


I don't think that would help his case much.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:25 AM  

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:25 AM  

simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.


Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:40 AM  
Frequent news photo. Guess the country:
i.huffpost.comView Full Size



Frequent news photo. Guess the country:
img.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 03:08:19 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...

Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.


but then the goddamn Batman swoops in to stop him, but at the last minute Robin betrays him for slapping him too many times! Batman's uncontrolled flatulence causes some disconcern! Robin sabotages the Batmobile to lose a wheel, causing the Joker to escape!
 
2012-12-25 03:08:54 AM  
mmm...Guiness.
 
2012-12-25 03:09:23 AM  

JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"


Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.
 
2012-12-25 03:10:53 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Gordon Bennett: Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...

Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.

but then the goddamn Batman swoops in to stop him, but at the last minute Robin betrays him for slapping him too many times! Batman's uncontrolled flatulence causes some disconcern! Robin sabotages the Batmobile to lose a wheel, causing the Joker to escape!


but then selena gomez offers the joker some Vicodin which he OD's on in justin biebers' hotel room so justin cries. fark this I'm tired.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:01 AM  

simkatu: All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.


Don't have so much as a water gun, but some of my neighbors are armed and I'm glad of it. Keeps the crooks guessing.

You have a point about drones (technology). The main reason the American revolution and the Enlightenment was able to occur was because the top weapon technology of the day was affordable and available to the masses. It was a quirky period in history that is similar to what's happening today in the information technology arena.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:04 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.


Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:05 AM  

mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?


You sure about that?
 
2012-12-25 03:14:53 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.


And most people who own ARs or variants of ARs don't have 100 round mags. But they are used for hunting varment. They make 100 round mags for my glock... does that make that a military style weapon? And by your definition, wouldn't that make 99% of handguns military style weapons, since they aren't made for hunting?
 
2012-12-25 03:15:06 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.



Yeah, who would want to use a weapon on a human who is attacking them.  That would be ridiculous.
 
2012-12-25 03:16:23 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.


Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.
 
2012-12-25 03:17:41 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


This has only been brought up a few dozen times so far, and my response has become increasingly polished, so let me take a swing at this...

We are not talking about the government as it exists now or the army as it exists now. Obviously, there is no significant armed opposition to our army since very few think the status quo is so unbearable right now.

The point is that things change. There is no way to predict what the country will be like 5 years from now, much less 20. It could be plague, it could be civil war, it could be an asteroid strike. It could be indefinite martial law. It would be incredibly dense to try to plot these scenarios out - because if we could, we would just avoid them.
 
2012-12-25 03:18:59 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Not as many as you seem to think. I got to know a moderately wealthy Brit and his wife spending holiday in California with some friends of mine. They spent a couple days going to the local shooting range so this man could remember how it felt to shoot firearms again. He hadn't fired one since his service days. He said it was near impossible to get clearance to own a firearm in England even to cull the overpopulated deer herd that lived on his property.
 
2012-12-25 03:19:37 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


You're describing an 'assault weapon', which is a political confabulation. An assault rifle is a completely different beast, but used interchangeably by the media and politicians to muddy the waters.
 
2012-12-25 03:20:37 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.
 
2012-12-25 03:22:37 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.


Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.
 
2012-12-25 03:23:11 AM  

JSam21: Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-12-25 03:24:00 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

You sure about that?


Yes. No serious people are suggesting that. It's absurd.
 
2012-12-25 03:25:58 AM  

CthulhuCalling: JSam21: Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.

notsureifserious.jpg


Notserious.jpg
 
2012-12-25 03:26:45 AM  

simkatu: Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.


wait a sec, you say that nobody hunts with an AR, but then you say that people do? I know plenty of hunters that hunt with an AR15, up to and including deer, but it's not really suited for that (and yes, I feel that an AR15 is inappropriate for taking a deer, but possibly an AR10). Plenty of varmint, hog and predator hunters use the AR platform. Whether it's used for hunting or not is just a red herring. Plenty of people at the range shoot the AR because they enjoy the hobby and the AR is a good platform for building a customized gun.
 
2012-12-25 03:27:08 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.


Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?
 
2012-12-25 03:28:35 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

And most people who own ARs or variants of ARs don't have 100 round mags. But they are used for hunting varment. They make 100 round mags for my glock... does that make that a military style weapon? And by your definition, wouldn't that make 99% of handguns military style weapons, since they aren't made for hunting?



The irrational people (which includes the media) define a "military style weapon" or an "assault weapon" as anything that has a curved magazine, something on the end of the barrel (doesn't matter what it is) and a comfortable handle/grip set-up.  Oh, it helps if it's black... because black looks more evil.

It's never the crazy person behind the gun that causes the chaos.... it's the way the gun looks.

BTW, you can get high-capacity magazines for practically every gun.

ww3.cad.deView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 03:28:46 AM  
http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/20 12/12/18/bath_school_bombing_rem embering_the_deadliest_school_massacre _in_american.html

Mentally unstable people will kill with what they have on hand. But they will kill. You cannot ban all weapons and gaurantee public security at all times. Stop promising it to people... Either by disarming them or arming them. Both the liberals and the NRA are wrong.

Think you CAN gaurantee security, if you disarm the people enough? Ala Saudi Arabia? Look at Lybia, Syria, or Iran. You will have to regularly repress the people and/or kill them in far more numbers than irresponsible or illegal gun use leads to in America today.

Whether the public is armed or not, it is not NRA nuts, CCP afficianadios or hunters that we are really worried about. It is crazy people. With guns. Or knives (china last week), or swords (uk today), or dynamite (us 80 yeas ago). What we need is not gun control but crazy control. More mental health services not more gun regulation.

And yes. It's hard for an American civilian to take on the US Army with an AR15. But can the 1mil man army, half of which are desk clerks, take on 100 million civilians with Glocks and AR15s? Not easily. Might stall the government long enough to come to their senses. Maybe not. But gotta love having a fighting chance.

Still, all this worry of gun violence... You are much more likely to die in a car accident or from Cancer.
 
2012-12-25 03:30:27 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.

Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.


There's no way to please everyone, so we shouldn't even try? I can own a gun this big, so why not THIS big? People will always say there's little difference at the exact line in the sand that's drawn. Duh. Little difference between driving with BAC of .079 and .080, but one could mean a felony conviction and the other no punishment at all. We still need to start with some sort of line.
 
2012-12-25 03:31:29 AM  

simkatu: Pray 4 Mojo: mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

You sure about that?

Yes. No serious people are suggesting that. It's absurd.


Fair enough.

That said... I don't see any "serious" gun owners/supporters suggesting that guns should just be handed out to anyone with the money to pay for it.

So what's the problem?
 
2012-12-25 03:31:53 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Attacks such as those at Sandy Hook are statistical anomalies. Also, guns are not the problem.
 
2012-12-25 03:32:09 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

wait a sec, you say that nobody hunts with an AR, but then you say that people do? I know plenty of hunters that hunt with an AR15, up to and including deer, but it's not really suited for that (and yes, I feel that an AR15 is inappropriate for taking a deer, but possibly an AR10). Plenty of varmint, hog and predator hunters use the AR platform. Whether it's used for hunting or not is just a red herring. Plenty of people at the range shoot the AR because they enjoy the hobby and the AR is a good platform for building a customized gun.


And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?
 
2012-12-25 03:33:18 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: simkatu: Pray 4 Mojo: mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

You sure about that?

Yes. No serious people are suggesting that. It's absurd.

Fair enough.

That said... I don't see any "serious" gun owners/supporters suggesting that guns should just be handed out to anyone with the money to pay for it.

So what's the problem?


Exactly!
 
2012-12-25 03:33:46 AM  

tukatz: It's never the crazy person behind the gun that causes the chaos.... it's the way the gun looks.

BTW, you can get high-capacity magazines for practically every gun.


True. Under the old AWB, if I take my old trusty Ruger 10/22 and drop the receiver into an aftermarket body with a adjustable stock and pistol grip, it suddenly becomes an 'assault weapon'. My Mossberg 930 becomes an a an 'assault weapon' just by changing out the stock. Neither of these changes do anything to effect the performance of the firearms at all and are merely cosmetic.
 
2012-12-25 03:34:16 AM  
No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.
 
2012-12-25 03:36:26 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


Got my patch:
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 03:37:16 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.


This. A million times this.
 
2012-12-25 03:37:19 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


Glad you have read the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment and also have an understanding of how super sonic rounds react to hitting something... here's a hint... they break up.
 
2012-12-25 03:38:03 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?


Ones that don't intend to kill lots of humans with a gun that has been designed specifically designed to kill lots of humans. My family has thousands of acres of hunting ranch property. We run boarding rooms for them during the seasons. Nobody ever brings an AR15 to hunt. Not in 30 years that I know about.
 
2012-12-25 03:38:18 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


The times they are a changing. The 2nd Amendment does not mean exactly the same thing it meant when it was ratified in 1791.
 
2012-12-25 03:38:41 AM  

JSam21: Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?


I can tell you what a real hunter isn't.

It isn't a guy shooting an AR from his pickup at deer by a feeder.
 
2012-12-25 03:39:15 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes.


imfdb.orgView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 03:41:05 AM  

log_jammin: JSam21: Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?

I can tell you what a real hunter isn't.

It isn't a guy shooting an AR from his pickup at deer by a feeder.


Totally... there should be a law against that.
 
2012-12-25 03:41:32 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

May I point you to District of Columbia v. Heller...
 
2012-12-25 03:41:45 AM  
i80.photobucket.comView Full Size


weirdnewsfiles.comView Full Size


I'm sure if you're willing to post something from a left wing rag like the Washington Post that cites nothing to support its article nothing will change your mind but would you care to name the army bases where these IDF soldiers are located? Are they wearing bikini BDUs? I have a friend who works for UBS in Zurich, their home office, and when he retired from the army they gave him his Sig Sauer machine gun.

The referendum that the Washington Post was referring to was actually rejected by 56% of the vote and a majority of the cantons last year. Too bad they didn't have the journalistic integrity to mention that.
 
2012-12-25 03:44:05 AM  

JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?


.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.
 
2012-12-25 03:45:15 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?

Ones that don't intend to kill lots of humans with a gun that has been designed specifically designed to kill lots of humans. My family has thousands of acres of hunting ranch property. We run boarding rooms for them during the seasons. Nobody ever brings an AR15 to hunt. Not in 30 years that I know about.


So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?
 
2012-12-25 03:46:51 AM  
At least we all agree that all serious people think that we should screen better for mental illness and criminal past at licensed dealers. Can we start there? NRA seems to think there is absolutely zero we can do to help at the point of sale. I disagree strongly.
 
2012-12-25 03:49:00 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Switzerland's number of firearms is 47,500 per 100,000 people. Their firearm homicide rate is 0.52 per 100,000 people. Their overall murder rate is 0.70 per 100,000.

The United Kingdom's number of firearms is 6,200 per 100,000 people. Their firearm homicide rate is 0.04 per 100,000 people. Their overall murder rate is 1.20 per 100,000.

In case anyone was interest.
 
2012-12-25 03:49:43 AM  

CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.


Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?
 
2012-12-25 03:49:59 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?

Ones that don't intend to kill lots of humans with a gun that has been designed specifically designed to kill lots of humans. My family has thousands of acres of hunting ranch property. We run boarding rooms for them during the seasons. Nobody ever brings an AR15 to hunt. Not in 30 years that I know about.

So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?


You'd be a kook if you showed up with an AR15. I don't care if you use depleted uranium tipped exploding bullets. That is just kooky.
 
2012-12-25 03:50:39 AM  

JSam21: So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?


No you wouldn't. You'd be a "tacticool" blowhard with too much time and money on his hands.
 
2012-12-25 03:51:43 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo:

imfdb.orgView Full Size


Too soon! Funny!
 
2012-12-25 03:53:16 AM  

simkatu: At least we all agree that all serious people think that we should screen better for mental illness and criminal past at licensed dealers. Can we start there? NRA seems to think there is absolutely zero we can do to help at the point of sale. I disagree strongly.


Well at point of sale... there really isn't much that can be done. Unless you change medical privacy laws in the US no one can know your medical history without your permission. Should we require that people turn over medical records for inspection before being allowed to purchase firearms? I wouldn't mind that actually.
 
2012-12-25 03:53:56 AM  

Mrtraveler01: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?


Civilians still own 47.5 guns per 100 people.
 
2012-12-25 03:54:49 AM  

simkatu: So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?

You'd be a kook if you showed up with an AR15. I don't care if you use depleted uranium tipped exploding bullets. That is just kooky.


If he showed up with an AR chambered for .308, he would have an AR10, which is a completely different beast. He'd probably look ridiculous, but if the locality permitted taking game with a semiautomatic rifle, ain't nothing wrong with it.
 
2012-12-25 03:55:28 AM  

JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?


No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!
 
2012-12-25 03:55:35 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?

Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.

Nobody is proposing any laws to take away our guns. Not even our AR-15s. They are proposing to stop the new sales of assault rifles, but this mythical gun ban of existing guns isn't ever going to happen here. Not without an Amendment or a new Supreme Court. Obviously we can restrict arm sales. You can't just go buy flame throwers, napalm, or whatever else you want with no restrictions.



And the last time our government banned "assault weapons" (Thor's blessed hammer, I hate that term) it had no noticeable impact on the crime rate or firearm homicide rate in our country. It is nothing but an appeasement gesture.
 
2012-12-25 03:55:46 AM  

simkatu: At least we all agree that all serious people think that we should screen better for mental illness and criminal past at licensed dealers. Can we start there? NRA seems to think there is absolutely zero we can do to help at the point of sale. I disagree strongly.


Not disagreeing with you...

But how do we go about screening for mental illness? Outside of prior commitments and/or criminal acts... this seems totally impractical.
 
2012-12-25 03:59:29 AM  

JSam21: So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?


That's never been the issue with the pols or anyone screaming for gun control. They're focusing on magazine capacity and method of operation- mainly due to ignorance and stupidity by confusing any black rifle as an 'assault rifle'. A few of them every now and them get heart palpitations when they discover that people can pick up a Barrett or MacMillan and jump on TV crying about how people can now take down airplanes, but that's pretty rare.
 
2012-12-25 04:00:37 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?

No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!


Sim... I'm trying to have a legitimate debate here. I've not once said that everyone should have access to weapons without restrictions. But since an AR10, which is an AR variant chambered in .308, can be used for hunting large game, then why are all AR variants automatically only for killing people? Or is it only the ones that shoot .223 rounds? Do you know what the AR stands for?
 
2012-12-25 04:03:12 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


You really do not know a lot about guns, do you?

You do realize that the type of gun from which a bullet is fired has absolutely real impact on force of the bullet, right? You can find semi-automatic civilian hunting rifles that fire the exact same ammunition as these semi-automatic military style rifles. So, fire that bullet from an AR-15 or from a Ruger (either the 5.56x42mm or the .223 Remington) and they will, for the most part, behave the same way. There will be some minor variations in performance, but not enough to make a difference in your ridiculous example of shooting through your neighbor's houses. The main difference between a military style and a civilian semi-automatic rifle is visual. That is it. There might be some minor differences as in better gas feed system, less recoil, etc., but these will vary from gun to gun. Against some civilian rifles and in some categories the military style will do better. In others it will not. Seems to me that you and so many other people are afraid of these guns simply because of the way they look. And that is irrational.
 
2012-12-25 04:05:17 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


And that ban had no noticeable affect on crime or firearm homicide rates. Military style semi-automatic rifles are hardly ever used in crimes. And their use in shootings like this or the Batman shooting or any other such incident are statistical blips.
 
2012-12-25 04:05:47 AM  
I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.
 
2012-12-25 04:07:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: mediaho: Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

Gun nuts are overreacting and paranoid.

Also the sky is blue and water is wet.


I favorited you for the MANY incredibly reasonable posts you have made in this thread.

Every sane person in this country (including President Obama) knows that there is no real way for us to disarm at this point. There are just too many guns out there. If there was some "everyone turn in your guns" law enacted (LOL) only about 20% of gun owners would comply (and they are the 20% that should be allowed to have guns in the first place, because they are trying to be responsible ). The shiatty little urban thugs didn't get their guns through legal channels anyway, and no law, or amendment, or fairy princess tap dance among the daffodils will convince even ONE of them to turn in their guns.

We've fashioned a rod for our own backs.
 
2012-12-25 04:10:42 AM  

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.
 
2012-12-25 04:11:38 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: They did make the crimes heck of a lot easier to accomplish, though.


You what makes crimes a lot easier to accomplish? Victims who are unable to fight back.
 
2012-12-25 04:11:44 AM  
Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

home.comcast.netView Full Size


What a hellhole. Truly.
 
2012-12-25 04:12:25 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?

No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!

Sim... I'm trying to have a legitimate debate here. I've not once said that everyone should have access to weapons without restrictions. But since an AR10, which is an AR variant chambered in .308, can be used for hunting large game, then why are all AR variants automatically only for killing people? Or is it only the ones that shoot .223 rounds? Do you know what the AR stands for?


I have a friend back in New York who sometimes hunts in Pennsylvania with a semi-automatic AK-47. For him it depends on the mood that he is in. The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle. In fact, many guns designed to kill humans make for decent hunting rifles.

/He hunts with a rifle in Pennsylvania because in most of New York you can only hunt deer with a shotgun fitted with a rifled barrel and using slugs (or with black powder rifles).
 
2012-12-25 04:12:29 AM  
24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 04:15:08 AM  

JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.


They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.
 
2012-12-25 04:16:06 AM  

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


I don't think you will find a gun owner that will state that ANY gun is as dangerous as a flower. Even a .22 has the power to maim or kill. But to answer a previous question, this picture suggests that yes, you can hunt with an AR15 (no, that isn't me. I use a Remington 700)
 
2012-12-25 04:16:55 AM  

James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.


have you tried their cuisine?
 
2012-12-25 04:16:59 AM  

Mock26: The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle.


If you're hunting the broad side of a barn.
 
2012-12-25 04:19:17 AM  

CthulhuCalling: this picture suggests that yes, you can hunt with an AR15


Yes you can. and you can kill a bear with a .22. There's documented cases and everything. That doesn't mean you should, or it's mart of you.

CthulhuCalling: I use a Remington 700


smart man.
 
2012-12-25 04:20:18 AM  

log_jammin: JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.

They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.


I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.
 
2012-12-25 04:20:19 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle.

If you're hunting the broad side of a barn.


You do not know much about guns, do you?
 
2012-12-25 04:22:10 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: log_jammin: JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.

They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.

I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.


Ok I think i've been misunderstood with this quote. I don't see a problem with it at all... and the person who said that they were solely made for killing people is who I was sayng is wrong.
 
2012-12-25 04:22:57 AM  

Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?


I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.
 
2012-12-25 04:24:33 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


The problem with that way of reasoning is that the government will make sure they are always much better armed. This is why the US is a police state, where every small town has a SWAT team with paramilitary weapons and why government control and power are everywhere. You are already living under a tyranny, and the misguided notions that guns equal freedom is actually used by the tyrants to fool a large part of the public in to believing they are living in a free country. You are not. You are living in a tyrannic olicharchy that has become so efficient that they succeed in having a large part of the population voting against their own interests.
 
2012-12-25 04:25:34 AM  

CthulhuCalling: OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.

I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.


Yep
 
2012-12-25 04:25:39 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.


I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying be honest about it. the AR line(and many others) was developed for the military to kill people. Period. Does that mean they should be banned on that basis alone? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that isn't what the were designed and built for.
 
DuX
2012-12-25 04:28:02 AM  
What the hell have our gun threads come to?
This is a sad state of affairs when we're +150 posts in and nobody has used the term "CLIP" followed by the obligatory lower lip quivering response full of righteous indignation.
I always hear it in Pee-Wee Herman's voice: "It's not a CLIP, it's a MAGAZINE!"

Fark, I am disappoint.
C'mon, get with the program.

/Clip.
 
2012-12-25 04:28:19 AM  

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you? Those us who are defending guns are not saying or even implying that guns are as dangerous as a flower. But, if you put a gun down on the ground then it really is as dangerous as a flower. Well, that is not true. You could stub your toe on the gun or trip over it or possibly cut your foot if you stepped on it barefoot, but it really is just a tool. The potential danger of a gun comes from the manner in which it is used and by the person using it. There are millions of legally owned military style semi-automatic firearms in this country that will never be used in an illegal manner. They are owned by responsible gun owners who simply enjoy shooting. And, yes, some people do use those firearms to hunt. It is not really traditional, but some people hunt with pistols. They simply enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with that. And given all of this, why should we ban a certain style of firearm because a handful of irresponsible people decide to use them to gun down kids in a school or people in a theater? Why punish the rest of us for the acts of a handful of criminals? Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.
 
2012-12-25 04:28:46 AM  
So are you anti gun people more scared of the top gun or the bottom one? the top one is all black with a pistol style grip while the other is pretty boring in the old wood style..
farm7.staticflickr.comView Full Size

Because its the same gun. I photoshopped the images of before and after I changed the stock to lighten it for target shooting. Ruger 10/22 in case you were wondering. and I even have a 25 round magazine for it along with 3 or 4 10 round mags.
 
2012-12-25 04:29:38 AM  

Mock26: Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you?


you won't see the irony in that comment.
 
2012-12-25 04:31:30 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


Yes, the government will "win", if you can go so far as to call it a "win".

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


As in all of the threads of late, THIS!

Bears repeating. That was the intent of the law. Let the people maintain some measure of defense.

Democracy, is first and foremost, by the people. Sure, right now we have a voting procedure that works, kind of. We have a voice. The ability for people to retain some of their power is what maintains those rights.

We all have politician's that we feel would be the death of us all if they were to come into real power, now imagine one step worse, a set of them that decided they didn't need to listen to polls and votes. This is how many other countries in the world work right now. It's a travesty. What amounts to slavery, genocide, violence at whim toward whatever group of people the gov' decides are it's enemies this week.

As I noted above, sure, the may not win, but "victory" will be too costly for some years yet. Take away guns, and that factor of fear goes away, puts on the table a less costly means to their goals.

We don't need that kind of revolution now, but if history shows us anything, we will eventually.
 
2012-12-25 04:33:32 AM  

log_jammin:
I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying be honest about it. the AR line(and many others) was developed for the military to kill people. Period. Does that mean they should be banned on that basis alone? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that isn't what the were designed and built for.


firearms were originally designed to kill people. later on they were found to be handy for killing food too. Guns kill. That's what they were designed for. They don't care what they are pointed at when the trigger is pulled. That is up to the person pulling the trigger.
 
2012-12-25 04:34:03 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


The difference is that Switzerland is one of the richest countries of the world with an extremely stable economy, low unemployment, very good education for all, highly democratic, and extremely cohesive social structure, a long history of anti-militarism and neutrality, and little problems with crime, poverty or other social issues. There is no other country quite like Switzerland.

The Swiss are with almost no exception, very nice, well-educated, and extremely boring people.
 
2012-12-25 04:34:58 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?

I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.


Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns. I have fired more than a few civilian model AK-47s and they are very accurate. How many have you actually fired? Sure, they might not be as accurate as say the M16, but they are accurate enough to hit a human sized figure at several hundred yards.

Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new. You will see how accurate it is. Oh, and his misses are close enough that if was hunting a deer he would have hit the deer.
 
2012-12-25 04:38:32 AM  

CthulhuCalling: firearms were originally designed to kill people. later on they were found to be handy for killing food too. Guns kill. That's what they were designed for. They don't care what they are pointed at when the trigger is pulled. That is up to the person pulling the trigger.


yeah, I'm not sure what your point is here. I know that "guns don't kill, people do". I know guns can be used to hunt even if they were originally designed to kill people. I never claimed those things were not true.

all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.
 
2012-12-25 04:41:08 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you?

you won't see the irony in that comment.


A typo (to vs. too) has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It is simply a typo. Funny, though, how you did not respond to the rest of my post.. Too afraid to do so?
 
2012-12-25 04:42:16 AM  

Mock26: Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns.


Yeah dude. you got me. I'm a college kid at Berkley and I've never touched a gun in my life. They totally make me cry n'stuff.

Mock26: Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new.


Just for shiats and giggles I think I'll google "ak 47 accuracy" and...well what do you know! same video! well case closed, it must be like some super accurate sniper rifle!
 
2012-12-25 04:43:56 AM  

Mock26: log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.

Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you? Those us who are defending guns are not saying or even implying that guns are as dangerous as a flower. But, if you put a gun down on the ground then it really is as dangerous as a flower. Well, that is not true. You could stub your toe on the gun or trip over it or possibly cut your foot if you stepped on it barefoot, but it really is just a tool. The potential danger of a gun comes from the manner in which it is used and by the person using it. There are millions of legally owned military style semi-automatic firearms in this country that will never be used in an illegal manner. They are owned by responsible gun owners who simply enjoy shooting. And, yes, some people do use those firearms to hunt. It is not really traditional, but some people hunt with pistols. They simply enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with that. And given all of this, why should we ban a certain style of firearm because a handful of irresponsible people decide to use them to gun down kids in a school or people in a theater? Why punish the rest of us for the acts of a handful of criminals? Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.


If I could favorite this from my phone I would.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:01 AM  
You know who know how to deal with swords
I'm tired of reading all this BS, if the panicked idiots win I'm also fine with that. They always get what they deserve.
/Merry fuking x-mas
 
2012-12-25 04:45:08 AM  

Mock26: It is simply a typo


I wasn't referring to your typo.

Mock26: Funny, though, how you did not respond to the rest of my post.. Too afraid to do so?


I didn't respond to it because it was full of a shiat ton of assumptions about what you think I believe and what I don't. and the reason you made those assumptions is because of your poor reading comprehension. Hence...the irony that slipped right passed you.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:10 AM  

log_jammin: all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.


guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.
 
2012-12-25 04:49:04 AM  

CthulhuCalling: guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.


Ok? and?
 
2012-12-25 04:56:03 AM  

Mock26: log_jammin: Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?

I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.

Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns. I have fired more than a few civilian model AK-47s and they are very accurate. How many have you actually fired?


How many versions are in the Call of Duty's?
/snerk

The AK-47 is actually fairly well re-purposed as a sniper(for those that didn't know)...

/Isn't the Dragonuv a refitted AK-47(in origin at any rate) for larger caliber, longer barrel, and semi-auto?

Really, with modern technology being what it is, interchangable or upgradable parts for different calibers, most guns are classed according to similarities in the firing and feed mechanisms. M-16/AR 15/whatever can shoot an amazing variety if you replace the right parts.

/partial to the bullpup design myself
//g-11 and p90 have interesting feeds that accomplish the same effect though
 
2012-12-25 04:59:54 AM  

log_jammin: CthulhuCalling: guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.

Ok? and?


It doesn't matter what you think it was intended for. If the gun performs acceptably in another function, it makes no difference what it's intended design use was. That doesn't mean you'll get laughed out of the hunting camp showing up with an AR.
 
2012-12-25 05:01:52 AM  
What was this guy's angle?

/oh, I see it in the photo, 90 degrees.
//perhaps he was clearing some bush.
 
2012-12-25 05:05:43 AM  

Mock26: Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.


Except it's more like wanting to ban cars, but those are already well-regulated and you knew that would lose you the argument, so you pulled out the strawman of the thing that wasn't used as a weapon.

You can argue for guns and not be disingenuous, you know.
 
2012-12-25 05:06:35 AM  
tvgoodness.comView Full Size


The most dangerous people don't need guns.
 
2012-12-25 05:08:52 AM  

CthulhuCalling: It doesn't matter what you think it was intended for. If the gun performs acceptably in another function, it makes no difference what it's intended design use was. That doesn't mean you'll get laughed out of the hunting camp showing up with an AR.


Read this carefully please....I never said, nor do I believe, that it matters what the gun was originally intended for. I only stated what it WAS originally intended for.
 
2012-12-25 05:15:39 AM  

CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?


Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.
 
2012-12-25 05:17:04 AM  

Gordon Bennett: CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?

Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.


The fark? How are you going to sell spray cheese in a bottle? That doesn't even make sense!
 
2012-12-25 05:20:27 AM  
In the meantime, I want to wish each and every one of you farkers a Merry Christmas and I hope to hell we can have one day of peace on earth.

/I have argued with many of you.
//fark it all. I wish you the best.
 
2012-12-25 05:30:21 AM  

starsrift: Mock26: Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.

Except it's more like wanting to ban cars, but those are already well-regulated and you knew that would lose you the argument, so you pulled out the strawman of the thing that wasn't used as a weapon.

You can argue for guns and not be disingenuous, you know.


Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy. So, I created a hypothetical but equally irrational response towards drunk driving and alcohol as an example to show how irrational it was. And it was the appropriate choice. It is not the car that makes the drunk driver kill someone. It is the alcohol. Either way, calling for the banning alcohol or banning cars because of drunk drivers is as irrational and stupid a response as calling for the banning of military style semi-automatic rifles because of a handful of incidents such as Sandy Hook.
 
2012-12-25 05:32:43 AM  

phrawgh: kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.


What about rocket launchers? Those are arms.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:15 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns.

Yeah dude. you got me. I'm a college kid at Berkley and I've never touched a gun in my life. They totally make me cry n'stuff.

Mock26: Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new.

Just for shiats and giggles I think I'll google "ak 47 accuracy" and...well what do you know! same video! well case closed, it must be like some super accurate sniper rifle!


So, if you have never fired a gun before in your life, let alone an AK-47, then commenting on the accuracy of the AK-47 makes you a fool.

As for the video, I never made the claim that it was some sort of super accurate sniper rifle. Hades, I never even made a hint along those lines. That video was in response to your specious claim that AK-47s were inaccurate, and the video proved you wrong. Of course, I did not expect you to admit that you were wrong.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:52 AM  

Mock26: Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy.


I'd like to think you stopped here.
 
2012-12-25 05:50:23 AM  

Wayne 985: phrawgh: kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What about rocket launchers? Those are arms.


And they can be purchased by civilians with proper licensing
 
2012-12-25 05:52:10 AM  

simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.


I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.
 
2012-12-25 05:52:47 AM  
Masterful troll, subby. Masterful. I doff my Fez to thee, sir.

/+whatever the going rate is and an extra eleventy on top...
 
2012-12-25 05:54:06 AM  
What the issue is with gun debates is what people think is what one person thinks another person needs. If you don't feel the need to have a gun, don't buy one. But your opinion shouldn't infringe on the right of another to have the option to buy a gun.

Happy Holidays to everyone. Enjoy your families today.
 
2012-12-25 06:16:25 AM  

LeftOfLiberal: simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.

I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.


And preventing more from entering society.
 
2012-12-25 06:17:22 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?

The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.


Are you suggesting that our past or present government has had tyrannical ideations that were unactionable in the face of our well-armed citizenry? Can you provide any evidence to support such a claim?
 
2012-12-25 06:35:51 AM  

starsrift: Mock26: Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy.

I'd like to think you stopped here.


You do realize, of course, that I was not actually calling for a ban on vodka or alcohol in general, right?
 
2012-12-25 06:52:29 AM  

Mock26: So, if you have never fired a gun before in your life, let alone an AK-47, then commenting on the accuracy of the AK-47 makes you a fool.


Lean what sarcasm is. You might find that identifying sarcasm would be beneficial to you.

Mock26: and the video proved you wrong.


also, the definition of "proof" and "proved" might help as well.
 
2012-12-25 06:54:30 AM  
I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.
 
2012-12-25 06:57:03 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


It's like a stew of crazy.
 
2012-12-25 06:59:09 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


Good advice.

When you get off that paranoid schizophrenia trip, do let us know how you find dealing with logic for the first time.
 
2012-12-25 07:02:07 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Isn't the Dragonuv a refitted AK-47(in origin at any rate) for larger caliber, longer barrel, and semi-auto?


Yes.
What makes the AK platform inaccurate is cheap manufacturing and poor fitting of the parts. The choice of round and the piston system don't help.
You can make a stamped receiver cheaply and leave lots of wiggle room (which keeps dirt and fouling from affecting what goes on under the hood). The gun will cost very little and run like a champ, but don't expect to win many matches at the hundred yard line.
Tighten the whole thing up and it becomes a pretty nice weapon.
...But the Armalite is still Americas iPod compared to Russias generic blue nokia.

As for the British, they are still working on gun control after the Cumbria shootings since the legislation after the Dunblane massacre was apparently incomplete.
They have reduced shootings, but this just means criminals are emboldened to attack with whatever is at hand.

/And I must say this mans knife collection is pathetic. I've seen better blades in a dime store.
/Spend some money on cold steel at least.
 
2012-12-25 07:08:10 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.
 
2012-12-25 07:11:30 AM  

Trapper439: As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.


and don't forget, he was also banning certain kinds of guns.
 
2012-12-25 07:13:12 AM  

Raptop: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?

The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that our past or present government has had tyrannical ideations that were unactionable in the face of our well-armed citizenry? Can you provide any evidence to support such a claim?


Sometime around 1776...
 
2012-12-25 07:17:37 AM  
i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.
 
2012-12-25 07:26:35 AM  
also in the UK, the government can jail you for racist things you put on the internet, and break apart your family based on your political affiliation.
 
2012-12-25 07:28:33 AM  

Jarhead_h: which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing.


I honestly think if we ended the drug war and curtailed the number of foreign wars, our violence statistics would drop faster than a pigeon hit with a .223.
The gun control argument is easier when you start from a low violence culture.
 
2012-12-25 07:31:08 AM  

Jarhead_h: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x636]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.


A big part of the problem is that as the huge post-WWII generation has aged, crime has gone down all over the industrialized world - and any crackpot anywhere can claim success for any anti-crime measure that has been initiated because crime went down, right? Concurrence.
Often mistaken for causation.
 
2012-12-25 07:36:42 AM  

log_jammin: Trapper439: As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

and don't forget, he was also banning certain kinds of guns.


Not entirely.
The AWB was Clinton's work, and closing the Machine gun registry was Charlie Rangal's fetish.
The Firearm owners protection act setup a method for instant background checks, banned gun registration, and allowed owners safe passage with their firearms (among other things).
It was really to reign in the ATF's abusive practices against owners and dealers.
The Hughes amendment was a fly in the ointment of otherwise good things.

/But I did not speak up, for I didn't own any machine guns.
 
2012-12-25 07:41:03 AM  

way south: The Hughes amendment was a fly in the ointment of otherwise good things.


maybe, but he still banned a type of gun.
 
2012-12-25 07:49:30 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


that was like epic dumb... lol
derpmeter to 15+...  thank you for the laugh.

/i hope that was intentional  O.o
 
2012-12-25 07:50:51 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Looks up chart of logical fallacies -

- False Claim
- Ambiguity
- Strawman

Conclusion: 3/10 - weak troll.
 
2012-12-25 07:51:39 AM  
One thing is absolutely guaranteed here on Fark™...  If there is a gun thread, there will be an epic number of posts in a very short time and they will always almost perfectly mirror every single other gun thread that has ever been on Fark™.
 
2012-12-25 07:52:41 AM  
Your men can't kill women with a samurai sword? How friggin pathetic do you have to be to not be able to pull that off
 
2012-12-25 07:55:44 AM  

iserlohn: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Looks up chart of logical fallacies -

- False Claim
- Ambiguity
- Strawman

Conclusion: 3/10 - weak troll.


remember... you must account for bites as well...  i think the current going rate is 2 bites = .5 bonus troll points if i am not mistaken... but its a kind of scale though... so as the number of bites goes up, the number of points does at a much lower rate up to a max of 11/10.  Though i have to admit, i don't recall seeing anyone get that high except pocketninja.

/Sorry if i missed anyone.
 
2012-12-25 07:58:12 AM  
the best troll so far is subby's trolltastic headline... 226bites as of this post

subby: 9/10  so far....

Merry Christmas and may God keep and Bless you.
 
2012-12-25 07:58:52 AM  
I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!
 
2012-12-25 08:02:26 AM  

lj1330: I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!


you know what i love?  these cookies the wife made... tea cookies, snickerdoodles, rolo cookies (rolos in the middle of a chocolate cookie), rugala (apricot), thumbprints, kiss cookies (kind of like a thumbprint but with a hershey's kiss in the middle), and gingerbread...
 
2012-12-25 08:12:18 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


So which is it? Guns are these Evil Incarnate devices, each imbued with the foreskin of satan (which explains the penis infatuation right)? Or are they the Nerf pea-shootersers you're claiming they are here?
 
2012-12-25 08:13:38 AM  

Mock26: Mrtraveler01: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?

Civilians still own 47.5 guns per 100 people.


Dear gun owners (of which I am one)

Please don't bother posting information about firearms in Switzerland (which is where I am posting this from). The info about the gun depots is not quite accurate. Storage of assault weapons at local armories is voluntary. Most marksmen and hunters do not do so since they would not be able to get them for training or competition.

Anyone who firmly believes that the most effective method of preventing abuse is to ban a commodity that is already available in huge quantities is not listening to anything. Save your breath.

After all, banning drugs and alcohol instantly and completely prevented their abuse, so I can see no reason why wouldn't it work equally well with firearms.
 
2012-12-25 08:16:38 AM  

JSam21: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...


Yeah, look at Lybia. They're livin' the high life now!
Anyone who truly thinks that every gun nut in the country combined would stand any kind of chance against the U.S. armed forces is a fool.
This is one of the many reasons people laugh at you.
This is one of the ways that we know you're incapable of reading a situation and coming to a realistic conclusion.
Your inability to understand such basic concepts is why you're not taken seriously.
You have every right to voice your opinions but be aware that airing such drivel tips off the rest of us to the fact that you're idiots and your opinions simply don't count.
 
2012-12-25 08:20:25 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


I have wondered about this. No-one appears to take into account the mass defections (at least) that would ensue if the Armed Forces were told to fire on their own people.
 
2012-12-25 08:39:45 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Well if that is the case, go to Congress and ask for that following arms be completely legalized: high explosives, booby traps, mines, etc. That is because small arms are pretty damn worthless against a modern military. IEDs and suicide bombers however can be effective against a modern military. Then go to your state legislature and demand that they form a state militia with high performance jet fighters, tanks, etc. uncontrolled by the national government and that they must get a stockpile of nuclear-armed missiles in order to keep Washington back.

If you don't do what I suggest, then I dare say that your claim that we need those guns to beat back tyrants is nothing more than a sham.
 
2012-12-25 08:41:32 AM  
Merry Christmas, subby! I got you the gift of go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-25 09:04:34 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.
 
2012-12-25 09:04:56 AM  

ZeroPly: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

This has only been brought up a few dozen times so far, and my response has become increasingly polished, so let me take a swing at this...

We are not talking about the government as it exists now or the army as it exists now. Obviously, there is no significant armed opposition to our army since very few think the status quo is so unbearable right now.

The point is that things change. There is no way to predict what the country will be like 5 years from now, much less 20. It could be plague, it could be civil war, it could be an asteroid strike. It could be indefinite martial law. It would be incredibly dense to try to plot these scenarios out - because if we could, we would just avoid them.


So you gun owners are all doomsday preppers? Do you also store food and medical supplies? After all, an army marches on its stomach.
 
2012-12-25 09:07:11 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.
 
2012-12-25 09:11:45 AM  
barnrunner.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 09:18:55 AM  

MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.


When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?
 
2012-12-25 09:21:37 AM  

MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.


Without the proper training and discipline, all you have is an unruly mob. That is hardly the type of organization that is going to protect us from whatever you think you are protecting us from. It is time that you take your responsibility seriously. You need to go to your local sheriff and tell him that you want him to organize a unit that is actually capable of defending all of us.

You are shirking your duties. You want all of us to believe that you are fine, loyal Americans and this is the chance to prove it.

It would also be a good idea for the sheriff to set up a armory where all of the weapons could be stored and ready for you when the big war starts. That is what all good militias do.
 
2012-12-25 09:25:30 AM  
This is a bit OT as I just avoid gun threads but considering that the store in question I am talking about is going to be open for business today and I worry about them, here we go.

In our neighborhood we have, for lack of a better term a bodega, although it is run by a nice family from Viet Nam (don't know the Vietnamese equivalent of convenience store, so it will have to suffice). Just a few months before I moved in with my old man, the bodega was robbed and yeah, we live in da 'hood, the store has iron bars over all the doors and windows, etc., but we shop there because it's close and they have good prices on soda, Arizona tea and cigarettes. So the old cat who owns the place was robbed at gunpoint one day in June (I moved here in September of last year). My old man was apparently walking in just as the robber was walking out and was questioned by police for a description. He couldn't really remember-we don't always pay attention to these things. But after he talked to the old cat, said hey you should get a gun. Old cat says, I don't want a gun, we're peaceful, etc., but we don't want to get robbed either. My old man brought in his glock to show the owners (there is also a wife and son who work the store at various times), brought it in unloaded and sans clip about a week later to show the store owner. Old cat decides to get a gun to protect himself and his business. Several months later, he has another robber try to rob him. Shoots the guy in the shoulder, calls the cops. Robber went to jail, old cat is still working at the store to this very day. I think the crook was surprised when a quiet, somewhat rude old guy pulled out a gun and just shot him for being a threat. Again, OT, really not to do with the horrible shootings and deaths we've had recently, but it it wasn't for a citizen's right to bear arms, including our immigrant citizens, there could've possibly been an awful, horrid tragedy. And while we only are shoppers at this bodega, we've gotten to know all of these folks and care about them, so a loss of any of them would have been a deep cause for grief and mourning in our house. Also, most assailants tend to be really shocked when a person actually fights back, whether it is self defence or any other means. They expect to intimidate and I think that the element of surprise and shock is what got my old store owner away alive.

/CSS
 
2012-12-25 09:29:51 AM  

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


If she had been carrying a gun, that implies that there would be a lax gun law.

So there would have been thousands of victims.

---

Also she might have shot that dude, but he had it comming.
 
2012-12-25 09:30:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.

When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?


Adana Turky, February of this year.
a damn burst killed ten workers.

/It was an "assault pool".
/killing children one at a time is better than doing it wholesale?
 
2012-12-25 09:31:43 AM  

MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.


Not a "gun fanatic" but I would take them up on that offer in a heartbeat.
 
2012-12-25 09:34:27 AM  

specialkae: This is a bit OT as I just avoid gun threads but considering that the store in question I am talking about is going to be open for business today and I worry about them, here we go.

In our neighborhood we have, for lack of a better term a bodega, although it is run by a nice family from Viet Nam (don't know the Vietnamese equivalent of convenience store, so it will have to suffice). Just a few months before I moved in with my old man, the bodega was robbed and yeah, we live in da 'hood, the store has iron bars over all the doors and windows, etc., but we shop there because it's close and they have good prices on soda, Arizona tea and cigarettes. So the old cat who owns the place was robbed at gunpoint one day in June (I moved here in September of last year). My old man was apparently walking in just as the robber was walking out and was questioned by police for a description. He couldn't really remember-we don't always pay attention to these things. But after he talked to the old cat, said hey you should get a gun. Old cat says, I don't want a gun, we're peaceful, etc., but we don't want to get robbed either. My old man brought in his glock to show the owners (there is also a wife and son who work the store at various times), brought it in unloaded and sans clip about a week later to show the store owner. Old cat decides to get a gun to protect himself and his business. Several months later, he has another robber try to rob him. Shoots the guy in the shoulder, calls the cops. Robber went to jail, old cat is still working at the store to this very day. I think the crook was surprised when a quiet, somewhat rude old guy pulled out a gun and just shot him for being a threat. Again, OT, really not to do with the horrible shootings and deaths we've had recently, but it it wasn't for a citizen's right to bear arms, including our immigrant citizens, there could've possibly been an awful, horrid tragedy. And while we only are shoppers at this bodega, we've gott ...


glad to hear that the family got through that.

You bring up a good point. Most crooks are going to be shocked when confronted by a person with a handgun. They are not prepared for a gun fight. Surveillance videos often show crooks fleeing the scene when the intended victim has a gun and shows a willingness to use it. Those videos show up on TV all the time.

That is why I find it so funny when the gun nutz tell us that they expect to get into a big shoot out with the people invading their homes. That is going to happen about one percent of the time. Unless, of course, you are running a meth lab in your house and the competition wants you out of the way.
 
2012-12-25 09:43:37 AM  

JSam21: MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.

Not a "gun fanatic" but I would take them up on that offer in a heartbeat.


Same here.
"You mean I get to go play with guns all day and its the law? sweet!"

Historical note tho: the bulk of the military force at the time the 2nd was crafted were militia forces. What the founders wanted was to standardize their training and ranks to make it easier to use them in wars.
The idea of keeping hundreds of thousands of paid enforcement officers would have been more alien to them than the modern rifle.

It was the lack of money for training that kept militia service from becoming more of a thing.

/dunno about stateside prices, but a box of 223 here will run you fifteen bucks.
/$120 to load one soldier with an absolute minimal, multiply that by a hundred guys and you're quickly talking real money.
/not counting the additional catering and equipment, plus compensation for their time if the training is mandatory.
 
2012-12-25 09:45:40 AM  
img.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 10:03:08 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


A handful of hapless farmers against the might of the Royal British Empire?  Hmphh...

mnartists.orgView Full Size
 
2012-12-25 10:04:14 AM  
British people love disarmed peoples.

They loved poorly armed Indians, Africans, Arabs, and Asians.

They did not enjoy the company of well armed Americans.
 
2012-12-25 10:07:12 AM  
"Woman seriously hurt" vs. 20+ people dead.

I'll take it, subby.
 
2012-12-25 10:11:54 AM  

sblafren: http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/20 12/12/18/bath_school_bombing_rem embering_the_deadliest_school_massacre _in_american.html

Mentally unstable people will kill with what they have on hand. But they will kill. You cannot ban all weapons and gaurantee public security at all times. Stop promising it to people... Either by disarming them or arming them. Both the liberals and the NRA are wrong.

Think you CAN gaurantee security, if you disarm the people enough? Ala Saudi Arabia? Look at Lybia, Syria, or Iran. You will have to regularly repress the people and/or kill them in far more numbers than irresponsible or illegal gun use leads to in America today.

Whether the public is armed or not, it is not NRA nuts, CCP afficianadios or hunters that we are really worried about. It is crazy people. With guns. Or knives (china last week), or swords (uk today), or dynamite (us 80 yeas ago). What we need is not gun control but crazy control. More mental health services not more gun regulation.

And yes. It's hard for an American civilian to take on the US Army with an AR15. But can the 1mil man army, half of which are desk clerks, take on 100 million civilians with Glocks and AR15s? Not easily. Might stall the government long enough to come to their senses. Maybe not. But gotta love having a fighting chance.

Still, all this worry of gun violence... You are much more likely to die in a car accident or from Cancer.


Your rational thoughts will NOT be tolerated in this thread. I bid you good day sir!
 
2012-12-25 10:18:28 AM  

treecologist: "Woman seriously hurt" vs. 20+ people dead.

I'll take it, subby.


The catch is you have to eat British food.

/need a ride to the airport?
 
2012-12-25 10:18:40 AM  
At least the Brits don't let the police have arms that they are not allowed to possess.   Americans just want to ban weapons for the civilians.
 
2012-12-25 10:23:11 AM  
I was wondering why they called this a samurai sword. Japanese swords with curved blades are illegal in the UK. Traditional English swords are not illegal. So farking stupid.
 
2012-12-25 10:26:22 AM  

Jarhead_h: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x636]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html


Different countries have different definitions of "violent crime".
Film at 11.
 
2012-12-25 10:29:29 AM  

Triumph: In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Aww how cute, you think that our small arms keep the government's tanks, bombers, and artillery in check!
 
2012-12-25 10:35:39 AM  

badhatharry: I was wondering why they called this a samurai sword. Japanese swords with curved blades are illegal in the UK. Traditional English swords are not illegal. So farking stupid.


Was going to say this. Looking at the photo, I don't even see Japanese-style swords there. I just see the machete next to what looks like a couple of straight-edge swords. Didn't know that traditional English swords were still allowed. I don't think they'd be any less dangerous.