- Joined
- Mar 14, 2003
- Posts
- 18,418
definitely.
HellioN said:
agreed.
i will say that, if we don't allow kids to walk into a rated R movie, we shouldn't allow the little shits to buy rated M games
Now that Feinstein's disarmemrment bills are effectively sunk we need "videogame control"
- Thread starter NeoTheranthrope
- Start date
definitely.
agreed.
i will say that, if we don't allow kids to walk into a rated R movie, we shouldn't allow the little shits to buy rated M games
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
We shouldn't stop kids from that stuff period. They don't stop kids from doing shit in most of Europe and they turn out just as fine as Americans or anyone else.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
That is all in regards to background checks, not straw purchases.
All the same. Common usage and popular culture has changed the meaning.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2003
- Posts
- 18,418
yeah, i could deal with that, as long as the double standard is removed
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
YES I think that they will reduce crime. The harder you make it to get guns, the fewer will be used in crimes.
Do I that Universal Background checks should be implemented? Do I think that the government should make it harder to get guns?
-Not Really.
I wouldn't say "Don't know anything". I know the difference, but I choose to use the slang. So fucking sue me.
I also know the difference between "Formica" and "Faux-Mica Plastic Laminate". But I don't think better of myself when other people call non-formica formica.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2003
- Posts
- 18,418
damn norton, you are pretty sassy today
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 46,842
I'd like to see some data on if crimes using firearms changed in California when they implemented our (near) universal background check requirement. Almost all guns sold here in CA have to be transferred through an FFL, including private transactions between individuals. Only guns legal to sell in a private transaction without going through a dealer are long guns more than 50 years old.
LOL, I was being hyperbolic.
That said no matter how many times people attempt to interchange clip and magazine I'm still going to correct them
I think concrete is a great material for a countertop.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
There is a difference between making it harder to get guns at the state level and making it harder to get them at the national level.
The one thing that happens in states with stricter purchase laws is that the number of CRIME GUNS from other states increases (usually from states with little to no gun laws). This does show that YES, stricter gun laws make it harder for criminals to get guns. And quite possibly, a strict uniform policy would reduce the overall ability of criminals to use guns.
Anywyas, I'm getting a 3D printer next year, so I don't have to worry about any of this shit.
I just wanted to note that only 10 states allow local prosecution for straw purchases.
The one thing that happens in states with stricter purchase laws is that the number of CRIME GUNS from other states increases (usually from states with little to no gun laws). This does show that YES, stricter gun laws make it harder for criminals to get guns. And quite possibly, a strict uniform policy would reduce the overall ability of criminals to use guns.
Anywyas, I'm getting a 3D printer next year, so I don't have to worry about any of this shit.
I just wanted to note that only 10 states allow local prosecution for straw purchases.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2003
- Posts
- 18,418
yeah, the war on drugs seems to be going great
we need a war on guns, because wars on inanimate shit are the best
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
I thought about drugs and prohibition/heavy restriction.
I just don't think that guns would be the same problem.
I just don't think that guns would be the same problem.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2003
- Posts
- 18,418
you don't think they'd be smuggled?
our borders are porous as shit, and are only gonna get more porous as inevitable federal cuts are made
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
Smuggled from where?
Last time I checked, Gun smuggling at our borders goes the other way.
Last time I checked, Gun smuggling at our borders goes the other way.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 46,842
I want more uniformity in guns laws in all jurisdictions of the United States.
The 2nd Amendment is a civil right - states and local jurisdictions don't get to make up their own interpretation of that right. Looks like right now we have separate but equal interpretation/application of the right.
There is no doubt the states have some leeway with the right - but I just don't know. I could own a firearm in MO that would make me a Felon in CA. If I lived 10 miles up the road in the next county I could get a license to carry a firearm. I can't in the county I live in.
Love ya buddy.
The 2nd Amendment is a civil right - states and local jurisdictions don't get to make up their own interpretation of that right. Looks like right now we have separate but equal interpretation/application of the right.
There is no doubt the states have some leeway with the right - but I just don't know. I could own a firearm in MO that would make me a Felon in CA. If I lived 10 miles up the road in the next county I could get a license to carry a firearm. I can't in the county I live in.
Love ya buddy.
Last edited:
NeoTheranthrope
Basara's Blade Keeper
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,676
The distinction between what counts as a "military" firearm versis what what counts as "non-military" is pure "If it bleeds; it leads!" media-hype bullshit. Here's two arguments for the price of one:
Most people, including some pro-gun folks, would assume that a little .22 rim-fire plinking rifle, like what I learned to first shoot with when I was 15 in the Boy Scouts, is undoubtedly, not a weapon of war. They're wrong.
It's a little known fact that during the American-Vietnam War, American LRRP teams would occasionally, depending on mission, have one sharpshooter armed with a small "civilian" .22 rimfire rifle for making stealth-kills on NVA and VC sentries. The .22 has a small sound-signature and with a carefully placed shot (behind the ear, for instance), even a .22 can be fatal at short-to-medium-range (shorter is better, though).
Source is from an autobiography of an U.S. Army chopper pilot from a unit that transported said LRRP teams into the field.
The distinction that disarmament-proponents try to make between some perceived military/civilian line of demarcation is hogwash, because it focuses on the purely cosmetic: is a 5.56mmx45mm NATO round fired from a M-16A4 any deadlier than a .223rem fired from a Ruger Ranch Mini-14?
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: No, they are functionally identical.
Is a "military" spoon deadlier than a "civilian" spoon?
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: No, they are functionally identical.
Guns are tools with a specific purpose. Spoons are tools with a specific purpose. So, here are four different tools are in two different different classes, while both classes are the same, both tools within the same class, other than appearance, are functionally identical.
Please forgive a small digression to explain why "militarization" is desirable:
Guns are inherently butch and the best way to make and already butch gun butch-ier is to give it scary "military"-stylization, even if that stylization does not affect the functionality of that gun. There's an actual term for that, it's called: "tacticool"; people do it for guns as well as spoons:
Link.
Now, is this "military"-stylized spoon deadlier than your avrage "civilian"-sporter spoon?
The line of reasoning is that civilians shouldn't use military tools, even though they are functionally identical to "civilian" tools within the same class, because... well... there is no reasoning; I've never heard an actual justification other than some codified variation of several different types of anti-logic: "guns are bad" (Hoplophobia), "gun people are bad" (classism) "people can't be trusted with guns" (paternalism), "someone else did a bad thing with guns, so I want you to be punished instead" (guilt by association), "if you support civilian ownership of military gear, including guns, do you support civilian ownership of heavy artillery or nuclear weapons?" (argument ad absurdum), or the perennial "it's for the children!" (appeal to emotion).
Most people, including some pro-gun folks, would assume that a little .22 rim-fire plinking rifle, like what I learned to first shoot with when I was 15 in the Boy Scouts, is undoubtedly, not a weapon of war. They're wrong.
It's a little known fact that during the American-Vietnam War, American LRRP teams would occasionally, depending on mission, have one sharpshooter armed with a small "civilian" .22 rimfire rifle for making stealth-kills on NVA and VC sentries. The .22 has a small sound-signature and with a carefully placed shot (behind the ear, for instance), even a .22 can be fatal at short-to-medium-range (shorter is better, though).
Source is from an autobiography of an U.S. Army chopper pilot from a unit that transported said LRRP teams into the field.
The distinction that disarmament-proponents try to make between some perceived military/civilian line of demarcation is hogwash, because it focuses on the purely cosmetic: is a 5.56mmx45mm NATO round fired from a M-16A4 any deadlier than a .223rem fired from a Ruger Ranch Mini-14?
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: No, they are functionally identical.
Is a "military" spoon deadlier than a "civilian" spoon?
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: No, they are functionally identical.
Guns are tools with a specific purpose. Spoons are tools with a specific purpose. So, here are four different tools are in two different different classes, while both classes are the same, both tools within the same class, other than appearance, are functionally identical.
Please forgive a small digression to explain why "militarization" is desirable:
Guns are inherently butch and the best way to make and already butch gun butch-ier is to give it scary "military"-stylization, even if that stylization does not affect the functionality of that gun. There's an actual term for that, it's called: "tacticool"; people do it for guns as well as spoons:
Link.
Now, is this "military"-stylized spoon deadlier than your avrage "civilian"-sporter spoon?
The line of reasoning is that civilians shouldn't use military tools, even though they are functionally identical to "civilian" tools within the same class, because... well... there is no reasoning; I've never heard an actual justification other than some codified variation of several different types of anti-logic: "guns are bad" (Hoplophobia), "gun people are bad" (classism) "people can't be trusted with guns" (paternalism), "someone else did a bad thing with guns, so I want you to be punished instead" (guilt by association), "if you support civilian ownership of military gear, including guns, do you support civilian ownership of heavy artillery or nuclear weapons?" (argument ad absurdum), or the perennial "it's for the children!" (appeal to emotion).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
You are right, the cosmetic features are completely foolish.
Which is why they have moved on to magazine limits.
Which is why they have moved on to magazine limits.
- Joined
- May 10, 2004
- Posts
- 5,204
No magazines here, But I think it still effectively debunks the argument.
Even with capacity limits you can learn to reload VERY quickly.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
We know that 6 children escaped while Adam Lanza was reloading.
We know that the guy in Arizona was overpowered when he stopped to reload.
You can learn to reload easily. But most motherfuckers can't even be disciplined enough to hold the gun straight.
We know that the guy in Arizona was overpowered when he stopped to reload.
You can learn to reload easily. But most motherfuckers can't even be disciplined enough to hold the gun straight.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
Yeah, I heard it was all a conspiracy.
Shooting never even happened.
Shooting never even happened.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
Just now?
- Joined
- May 10, 2004
- Posts
- 5,204
Well no, you have always been an insufferable bastard.
But I am in no way/shape/form implying that "it never happened".
I simply stating that no one seems to be able to really get the facts straight.
Neither of us were there & even eyewitnesses can have a hard time keeping it together.
I guess the short of it is some of the facts are speculation, some are bent for an agenda, & some we will simply never know.
But I am in no way/shape/form implying that "it never happened".
I simply stating that no one seems to be able to really get the facts straight.
Neither of us were there & even eyewitnesses can have a hard time keeping it together.
I guess the short of it is some of the facts are speculation, some are bent for an agenda, & some we will simply never know.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 46,842
Magazine limits will be found to be unconstitutional.