The Firearm Topic

[Chunkyman]

 

Please quote where I said that people should be thrown into cages if they dont abide by my opinions.

 

When one says they think that civilians should not own guns (or other things, like drugs), 99% of the time it's in the context of making it illegal. Now what exactly does something being "illegal" constitute? It's significantly more than stating an opinion, it's an advocation of violence against anyone who does not abide by that law. This is because making something illegal involves having guys in blue costumes with guns finding people in violation of the law and throwing them in a cage for a few years/decades (and killing them if they refuse being held against their will).

 

Call me crazy, but I have a moral problem with forcing people to be detained in a cage against their will (and murdering them if they resist) for their great "crime" of owning inanimate objects like firearms.

 

Not that pesky morality stuff matters, all that matters is one's pragmatic justifications! I mean it's not like prohibition of things has any unintended consequences. Considering the wild success of drug prohibition, I'm sure the government would be equally effective at stopping people from getting firearms. What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Why should citizens be allowed to have tools that can create disharmony within a a society?

 

Why should individuals have a right to imprison/kill other individuals for owning inanimate objects?

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

In other news, my birthday present was my Grandad's 1966 Colt Frontier Scout. I cleaned a lot of the Sharpie that had desecrated it off, so it looks pretty good now. This is an awesome present, because now I have a real Colt revolver.

 

I love the grips, they pull off the elk antler look fairly well. Plus the shiny Colt medallion looks really nice.

 

Edited January 13, 2013 by Chunkyman

[mdr279]

I had something long typed up but my iPod ran out of battery. I don't want this to turn into an argument. I respect that many Americans are attached to guns, but I believe that a sacrifice has to be made to get the high rate of fire and high round capacity guns off the streets; meaning you could still own and use your new colt.

 

I doubt very very much however that the authorities would kill you for resisting if found owning an illegal gun. They have been debating whether to kill the Auroa shooter and somehow I don't think they would then go around and give out the death penalty like Skittles.

 

 

[Stephan90]

Hey for everyone interested in identifying guns, take a look at my topic about weapons in GTA V. Thanks

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=532181

[lil weasel]

RABID anti-gunners.

Anti-Assault Gun Rally in front of a Connecticut Wal*Mart store, it doesn't sell firearms or ammunition.

Connecticut proposed law requiring 'mental-health workers' to report any person who makes a 'credible' statement regarding a firearm attack. Forget about physical or knife attacks.

 

By the way got this in an E-mail.

Metro Crime Reporting:

 

 

[sivispacem]

RABID anti-gunners.

Anti-Assault Gun Rally in front of a Connecticut Wal*Mart store, it doesn't sell firearms or ammunition.

Connecticut proposed law requiring 'mental-health workers' to report any person who makes a 'credible' statement regarding a firearm attack. Forget about physical or knife attacks.

 

By the way got this in an E-mail.

Metro Crime Reporting:

 

The crime figures have been done to death. Your about 2 weeks late to the party.

 

Also, you do yourself a disservice by addressing people with rational concerns in such a demeaning and ignorant way. I don't think anyone here is intrinsically anti-firearms, least of all "rabidly".

[lil weasel]

I consider it Rabid when an animal attacks the nearest target rather than one that poses a 'threat'.

I consider it Rabid when a law only addresses one form of 'threat' and not others.

[sivispacem]

I consider it Rabid when an animal attacks the nearest target rather than one that poses a 'threat'.

I consider it Rabid when a law only addresses one form of 'threat' and not others.

Nice straw man to avoid the legitimate questions. Its almost as if you haven't read the arguments you are badly generalising.

[Saggy]

I had something long typed up but my iPod ran out of battery. I don't want this to turn into an argument. I respect that many Americans are attached to guns, but I believe that a sacrifice has to be made to get the high rate of fire and high round capacity guns off the streets; meaning you could still own and use your new colt.

 

I doubt very very much however that the authorities would kill you for resisting if found owning an illegal gun. They have been debating whether to kill the Auroa shooter and somehow I don't think they would then go around and give out the death penalty like Skittles.

Eh, why do people always think they can just aggressively state their opinion and then say they don't want an "argument" the moment it becomes a two-way conversation?

 

Anyway, I'll cut to the point regarding high capacity magazines... There's not a lot of states where it isn't already a law that the maximum magazine capacity be something like 10. Past that, federally speaking there's already a law limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds. There are lots of aftermarket manufacturers producing 30 round magazines and things like that, but rather than try to go after them legislatively they need to be enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I mean what good would passing a high-capacity magazine ban do considering there's already laws on the books regarding magazine limitations?

 

As far as a police officer killing you for resisting, I believe what Chunky is referring to is the slightly rhetorical but not all that inaccurate perception that police in America are a bit "trigger happy" and will kill you in "self-defense" for the slightest of resistance. There's usually a weapon involved and the officer claiming they feared for their life, etc. The thing is that in most cases the officers don't even face sever disciplinary measures, let alone criminal action. There was a case in Seattle I remember because it was close to home, an old vagrant wood-carver was walking through an intersection carving with a knife. An officer pulls up, yells "Drop the knife" and not even a whole second later does he shoot the guy 4 times in his side and back. Ballistic evidence proved the man never even faced the officer, and meanwhile he was simply forced to resign. Past that there's the famous New York case of a black man being shot because the cop thought his wallet was a gun... I mean there's too much anecdotal stuff to comment on there.

 

The point he was trying to emphasize is that the police have been on the end of questionable shootings where they claimed and were found to have been acting in self-defense, but if you look at the rights a civilian has in comparison it seems that there's a bit of a double standard especially in high profile incidents. I've basically heard people describe it pretty aptly as, "There's no such thing as self-defense against a cop."

 

[Celticfang]

I had something long typed up but my iPod ran out of battery. I don't want this to turn into an argument. I respect that many Americans are attached to guns, but I believe that a sacrifice has to be made to get the high rate of fire and high round capacity guns off the streets; meaning you could still own and use your new colt.

 

I doubt very very much however that the authorities would kill you for resisting if found owning an illegal gun. They have been debating whether to kill the Auroa shooter and somehow I don't think they would then go around and give out the death penalty like Skittles.

Eh, why do people always think they can just aggressively state their opinion and then say they don't want an "argument" the moment it becomes a two-way conversation?

 

Anyway, I'll cut to the point regarding high capacity magazines... There's not a lot of states where it isn't already a law that the maximum magazine capacity be something like 10. Past that, federally speaking there's already a law limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds. There are lots of aftermarket manufacturers producing 30 round magazines and things like that, but rather than try to go after them legislatively they need to be enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I mean what good would passing a high-capacity magazine ban do considering there's already laws on the books regarding magazine limitations?

 

As far as a police officer killing you for resisting, I believe what Chunky is referring to is the slightly rhetorical but not all that inaccurate perception that police in America are a bit "trigger happy" and will kill you in "self-defense" for the slightest of resistance. There's usually a weapon involved and the officer claiming they feared for their life, etc. The thing is that in most cases the officers don't even face sever disciplinary measures, let alone criminal action. There was a case in Seattle I remember because it was close to home, an old vagrant wood-carver was walking through an intersection carving with a knife. An officer pulls up, yells "Drop the knife" and not even a whole second later does he shoot the guy 4 times in his side and back. Ballistic evidence proved the man never even faced the officer, and meanwhile he was simply forced to resign. Past that there's the famous New York case of a black man being shot because the cop thought his wallet was a gun... I mean there's too much anecdotal stuff to comment on there.

 

The point he was trying to emphasize is that the police have been on the end of questionable shootings where they claimed and were found to have been acting in self-defense, but if you look at the rights a civilian has in comparison it seems that there's a bit of a double standard especially in high profile incidents. I've basically heard people describe it pretty aptly as, "There's no such thing as self-defense against a cop."

Not only in the US...the firearms police here have a reputation for it. Just as the normal police have a reputation in the UK for coercing confessions (see Life on Mars, it deals with that)

 

Off the top of my head here police have shot OR tazered people for:

 

Being blind and carrying a white cane which was mistaken for a samuri sword

 

Carrying a table leg they thought was a shotgun

 

Barricading inside a home (okay, that was justified as the lawyer was threatening them)

 

Fitting the racial profile of a terrorist (Jean Charles De Menezez)

 

Going for a phone (however there are phones modified to be illegal tazers)

[Stig]

I live in NY, where it just became incredibly harder to become a legal owner of a firearm.

 

NY states newest gun laws

 

Welcome to America.

[Celticfang]

I live in NY, where it just became incredibly harder to become a legal owner of a firearm.

 

NY states newest gun laws

 

Welcome to America.

Funny, I agree with bits of that (like the ban on high capacity magazines) but...I wish they'd invest in mental health as well, it's all well and good saying mentally ill people can't get guns....but, they can't get help either. I'd rather they get help than guns personally

[Ex Hellraiser]

Really? "High capacity " meaning 8? Before the new law, it was ten but they arbitrarily cut three rounds off that...

 

I love Wyoming though, which put into effect a law that would allow federal officers attempting to enforce a gun law violating the Constitution to be arrested with a penalty of a year of prison or more. That is justice. When the federal govern is unable to properly lead its nation, the individual states must step up and do it themselves. Sadly, this is happening right before our eyes.

[sivispacem]

I think personally it depends on the application and weapon in question. A "high capacity" rifle magazine is pretty sensibly defined as "more than 10". 8 does seem quite stupid given that it makes previous standard capacity magazine designs illegal. But does that only apply to long guns? I can't think of a single double-stack pistol magazine in any caliber below .44 making with a capacity of less than 12 rounds...

[lil weasel]

The New York Law was well thought out being that the Civilian Marksmenship Program (a U.S. government-chartered program ) will be sidelined because of the 7 round limit.

As the primary weapon distributed to the citizens has an 8 round magazine clip.

A definite hammer action to deprive the citizens of a 'right'.

Boiling the frog continues under the guise of 'Safety'.

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2013 by lil weasel

[Purple Drank]

Here's my gat

 

Its not like im a murderer or somethin, I just keep it for protection.

[Chunkyman]

I live in NY, where it just became incredibly harder to become a legal owner of a firearm.

 

NY states newest gun laws

 

Welcome to America.

If you think that's bad, wait until the next shooting.

 

They're going to just flat out ban semi autos because "you don't need babby killing assault weapons in the first place". They only take these incremental steps in violating people's rights so as to avoid significant public backlash.

[Purple Drank]

 

I live in NY, where it just became incredibly harder to become a legal owner of a firearm.

 

NY states newest gun laws

 

Welcome to America.

If you think that's bad, wait until the next shooting.

 

They're going to just flat out ban semi autos because "you don't need babby killing assault weapons in the first place". They only take these incremental steps in violating people's rights so as to avoid significant public backlash.

I own 2 semi-autos, dammit.

 

They're taking this too seriously. I mean Cmon? You wanna take away all guns then? Good America will be like UK, cops don't have guns but have tasers. Tis country is going down hill.

 

Plus where I live, you can buy guns illegally and legally anywhere. So they're gonna have a rough time taking away guns.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Purple Drank

[sivispacem]

 

The New York Law was well thought out being that the Civilian Marksmenship Program (a U.S. government-chartered program ) will be sidelined because of the 7 round limit.

As the primary weapon distributed to the citizens  has an 8 round magazine

I thought the law specified 8 round magazines as the maximum (over 8 rounds)? That's what everything I've read says anyway.

 

Anyone who claims legislation like this is a stepping stone to complete prohibition does yourself s disservice unless they can qualify it. To me it seems like sensational hyperbole. The last Assault Weapons Ban didn't result in a gun grab, did it? And what's with all the negative references to Europe, specifically the UK? Don't you know we're a freer society than you?

Edited January 16, 2013 by sivispacem

[lil weasel]

"An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine will face charges.

 

One of the 'defects' with the M1 is that you can't load less than eight, unlike box magazines.

Edited January 16, 2013 by lil weasel

[Chunkyman]

 

Anyone who claims legislation like this is a stepping stone to complete prohibition does yourself s disservice unless they can qualify it. To me it seems like sensational hyperbole.

...Says the guy who's country banned most guns as a result of mass shootings.

[Celticfang]

Anyone who claims legislation like this is a stepping stone to complete prohibition does yourself s disservice unless they can qualify it. To me it seems like sensational hyperbole.

...Says the guy who's country banned most guns as a result of mass shootings.

Australia did as well, after a massacre there.

 

Oh wait, Canada has guns, but far less mass shootings too.

 

FYI, you can buy guns here, so don't believe everything FOX tells you

[sivispacem]

Anyone who claims legislation like this is a stepping stone to complete prohibition does yourself s disservice unless they can qualify it. To me it seems like sensational hyperbole.

...Says the guy who's country banned most guns as a result of mass shootings.

We banned semi-automatic centrefire rifles and handguns. They hardly constituted "most" weapons in the UK at their time of banning. Plus restrictions on firearm ownership in the UK have been in place for decades, and barely changed in two decades. If anything, it perfectly demonstrated my point that restrictions on ownership don't amount to complete prohibition.

 

Weasel- my mistake. However, aren't the Garands excerpt because a) they were manufactured before 1994 and therefore fall outside the remit of the law and b) the law only applies to detatchable magazines?

[Purple Drank]

 

, so don't believe everything FOX tells you

 

 

Watch what you say, FOX 5 is watchin'

[AtomicPunk]

Anyone who claims legislation like this is a stepping stone to complete prohibition does yourself s disservice unless they can qualify it. To me it seems like sensational hyperbole.

...Says the guy who's country banned most guns as a result of mass shootings.

We banned semi-automatic centrefire rifles and handguns. They hardly constituted "most" weapons in the UK at their time of banning. Plus restrictions on firearm ownership in the UK have been in place for decades, and barely changed in two decades. If anything, it perfectly demonstrated my point that restrictions on ownership don't amount to complete prohibition.

 

Weasel- my mistake. However, aren't the Garands excerpt because a) they were manufactured before 1994 and therefore fall outside the remit of the law and b) the law only applies to detatchable magazines?

I thought you said that you guys were "free'er than people in the U.S.?

 

 

I lost all my thousands of dollars of assault weapons last weekend while I was camping. It was the darndest thing.

[sivispacem]

I thought you said that you guys were "free'er than people in the U.S.?

Last time I checked, the vast majority of the world doesn't consider ownership of firearms to be a right of any description. In fact, the US keeps company with Mexico, Yemen, Cuba, North Korea and Sharia-based states like Pakistan in having a constitutional right to bear arms. Solely, that is. Not to draw too much from that, but it's quite a motley collection of failed states, pseudo-Communist dictatorships, religiously discriminatory Sharia nations, Stalinist autocracies and free-for-all cartel battlegrounds that the US finds itself accompanied by.

[Stig]

I thought you said that you guys were "free'er than people in the U.S.? 

Last time I checked, the vast majority of the world doesn't consider ownership of firearms to be a right of any description. In fact, the US keeps company with Mexico, Yemen, Cuba, North Korea and Sharia-based states like Pakistan in having a constitutional right to bear arms. Solely, that is. Not to draw too much from that, but it's quite a motley collection of failed states, pseudo-Communist dictatorships, religiously discriminatory Sharia nations, Stalinist autocracies and free-for-all cartel battlegrounds that the US finds itself accompanied by.

Oh, and ENGLAND. (At one time) Don't forget to add that one to your list of "evil" countries who's citizens have the rights to bear arms.

 

English Bill of Rights

 

 

[lil weasel]

Oh, and ENGLAND. (At one time) Don't forget to add that one to your list of "evil" countries who's citizens have the rights to bear arms.

 

English Bill of Rights

Siv already has pointed out that he U.K. 'bill of rights' is only a suggestion that is changeable by act of Parliment on a whim.

Unlike the U.S. which requires radification by the states.

[Stig]

Oh, and ENGLAND. (At one time) Don't forget to add that one to your list of "evil" countries who's citizens have the rights to bear arms.

 

English Bill of Rights

Siv already has pointed out that he U.K. 'bill of rights' is only a suggestion that is changeable by act of Parliment on a whim.

Unlike the U.S. which requires radification by the states.

Ooooh okay, must've missed that post

[Celticfang]

Oh, and ENGLAND. (At one time) Don't forget to add that one to your list of "evil" countries who's citizens have the rights to bear arms.

 

English Bill of Rights

Siv already has pointed out that he U.K. 'bill of rights' is only a suggestion that is changeable by act of Parliment on a whim.

Unlike the U.S. which requires radification by the states.

But....going back in time, there WAS such a thing, requiring ratification by the regions at the time.

 

Wales however, laws there have issues when one region refuses to pass a law there and the whole thing gets kicked back to the WA and debated....again

[Stig]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/