The Firearm Topic

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

There is no consistent definition of an "Assault Weapon". It is a term created by anti-gun legislators to blur the facts on what rifles should and shouldn't be legal. It's also used by the few that know they can't get away with calling any civilian variant rifle an "assault rifle".

 

Edit:Beat me to the punch

[Chunkyman]

 

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But... But... JUSTTHINKOFTHECHILDREN!!!1!!

 

Also,

video annoys me every time I watch it. I rather hate (gun) control freaks. Edited January 17, 2013 by Chunkyman

[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.

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

"Within the rule of law" means that any right to the ownership of firearms can be superseded by legislation. Therefore, no effective right to bear arms actually exists- it basically says "you can own weapons as long as the law says you can".

[lil weasel]

And the Law is made up from the Fears of the Legislature regarding their own safety. Every Political has the worry of being removed from office by other than a ballot or FBI sting. The ‘Children’ they are protecting is themselves.

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has been known to adjust other governments via non-ballot means. While it (C.I.A.) is supposed to work only outside of the U.S. borders, who really knows?

We do know from the past that at least one Senator has ignored U.S. Law to protect himself to the point of hiring a Foreign National to circumvent the very laws he propagated.

Then there is the matter of mass killing perpetrators’ survival rates. It is not in the Governments interest to bring them to trial.

So, to offer protection, to our ‘children’, the only logical thing to do is destroy all firearms that have more than One shot, and require that arm to require more than one minute to reload.

No more than One firearm per household.

Allow the Police to conduct a weapons sweeps without warrant.

[sivispacem]

Are you actually making a point, or just creating straw men for no apparent reason?

 

I notice you didn't respond to my earlier comments about the applicability of the new legislation in the case you highlighted?

[CJ killed Ryder]

Guns are STUPID!!!

 

I'm glad I live in Europe.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Guns are STUPID!!!

 

I'm glad I live in Europe.

I'm glad you live in Europe too. The recent trend in the US seems to be significantly less knowledge about guns among the activists and the politicians who regulate them due to the lack of exposure to firearms. Gun ownership is merely a cultural trait of the US. Anyone who tries to compare our gun culture to anyone else's abroad is clearly ignorant on the issue. It's more complex than just a bunch of people taking the initiative to protecting themselves. Some guns have the sentimental value of cars to their owners. Recreational shooting (not limited to hunting) is a HUGE activity in the southern US. Another problem is that southern states have a very different gun culture than others (and less mass shootings too despite much higher gun ownership). However, given that the majority rules in the US, our gun regulations at the federal level are being made by those with very distant gun-ownership stances who frankly don't give a damn about certain state's gun cultures.

 

 

 

 

The dumbasses in Congress that actually think this will prevent more mass shootings...

Can somebody tell me how occasional mass shootings by some idiot warrant the millions of law-abiding gun-owners in the US to face tighter restrictions. Funny how CNN and MSNBC try to report on every shooting they can now that gun restrictions are up for debate in Washington, but the numerous home defense scenarios happening lately are no where to be found on their programs. Gun crime is actually down, it's just the mass shootings that are slightly more prevalent.

 

*If the Federal gov. even hints at banning any AR-15 features, I'm buying one before the bill signing anyway. So I'm not too worried about my personal freedoms being infringed. Just passionate I guess. Sorry for the grammatical errors. I just woke up.

Edited January 17, 2013 by canttakemyid

[sivispacem]

Out of interest, do you class background checks as "restrictions"? Would you hypothetically class mandatory training as a "restriction"? I guess it's a question of interpretation, but on both counts I wouldn't say they're a restriction. Does a waiting period count as a restriction?

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Out of interest, do you class background checks as "restrictions"? Would you hypothetically class mandatory training as a "restriction"? I guess it's a question of interpretation, but on both counts I wouldn't say they're a restriction. Does a waiting period count as a restriction?

Yes. They are all restrictions. They are actually wonderful restrictions because they could potentially push gun-regulation in the right direction as opposed to just banning cosmetic features on the gun that "look scary" (which is the current direction of gun-regulation). I'm not against regulation at all.

 

I'm against those in Washington having the audacity to attack my gun-ownership stances as being egregious; yet they don't know a damned thing about guns and those who own them. Especially since the typical gun owner (a gun owner who follows the law) isn't the one shooting up schools. It's arrogant and even sacrilegious for a politician to not educate himself/herself on our gun culture before laying down heavy restrictions.

 

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

[lil weasel]

 

Can somebody tell me how occasional mass shootings by some idiot warrant the millions of law-abiding gun-owners in the US to face tighter restrictions.

A. Lincoln

J. Garfield

W. McKinley.

J. F. Kennedy.

F. Ferdinand.

R. Heydrich

M. K. Gandhi.

M. L. King

L. A. Khan

 

Every Political has the worry of being removed from office by other than a ballot or FBI sting. The ‘Children’ they are protecting is themselves.

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has been known to adjust other governments via non-ballot means. While it (C.I.A.) is supposed to work only outside of the U.S. borders, who really knows?

We do know from the past that at least one Senator has ignored U.S. Law to protect himself to the point of hiring a Foreign National to circumvent the very laws he propagated.

Then there is the matter of mass killing perpetrators’ survival rates. It is not in the Governments interest to bring them to trial.

So, to offer protection, to our ‘children’, the only logical thing to do is destroy all firearms that have more than One shot, and require that arm to require more than one minute to reload.

No more than One firearm per household.

Allow the Police to conduct a weapons sweeps without warrant.

 

[sivispacem]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I agree entirely. But that doesn't mean that firearms culture in the US doesn't have to share part of the blame.

 

As for restricting firearm ownership, I see no fundamental way a law-abiding citizen has their rights to firearm ownership restricted by undergoing a background check for private sales.

[AtomicPunk]

If anyone here actually believes that Obama and his cronies will succeed in banning guns in the U.S., is a fool. Each state can block the feds and not enforce any gun laws that they pass. Many states have already said it will not apply to their state and will not be enforced, and if any fed tries to arrest someone in any of these states, that fed will be arrested and charged with a serious crime. These radicals will never succeed with their agendas. All they are doing is fanning the flames of an uprising, revolution/civil war. The backbone of America is on the verge of a stampede of chaos, never before seen. Thomas Jefferson and many other were right, and there does need to be a revolution every 15-20 years to make sure that politics don't end up like they are now. I guess dumping all those head drugs, like Xanax, into the water supply and keep everyone 'calm' didn't work afterall.

[Chunkyman]

If anyone here actually believes that Obama and his cronies will succeed in banning guns in the U.S., is a fool. Each state can block the feds and not enforce any gun laws that they pass. Many states have already said it will not apply to their state and will not be enforced, and if any fed tries to arrest someone in any of these states, that fed will be arrested and charged with a serious crime. These radicals will never succeed with their agendas. All they are doing is fanning the flames of an uprising, revolution/civil war. The backbone of America is on the verge of a stampede of chaos, never before seen. Thomas Jefferson and many other were right, and there does need to be a revolution every 15-20 years to make sure that politics don't end up like they are now. I guess dumping all those head drugs, like Xanax, into the water supply and keep everyone 'calm' didn't work afterall.

 

 

Obama doesn't need to do much on the Federal level, the states are severely violating people's rights all on their own (like New York). New Jersey is also preparing a new series of laws that are even more severe than the ones passed in New York.

[sivispacem]

 

If anyone here actually believes that Obama and his cronies have the intention of banning guns in the U.S.,they are a fool.

There, I fixed that for you.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

As for restricting firearm ownership, I see no fundamental way a law-abiding citizen has their rights to firearm ownership restricted by undergoing a background check for private sales.

Certainly not, but did you see the restrictions New York just passed? Glad I don't live there. 7 rounds is now the maximum magazine capacity in firearms. Good luck on them finding 7 round magazines that don't even exist. This ultimately makes it illegal to fill up your gun's magazine. California is another state whose politicians have their heads in the sand on this issue. There, they've banned several cosmetic features - certain stocks, sights, grips, and other attachments - that have zero relevance to the gun's lethality.

 

It's silly regulations like these that are clearly making a move beyond the containment of the liberal circle jerk states and into our federal legislature. These are the overly-restrictive and infringing aspects of gun regulation that gun owners fear. Not background checks and waiting periods.

[lil weasel]

 

It's silly regulations like these that are clearly making a move beyond the containment[...]

That's the idea. A very popular rifle is the M1 Garand, which takes a special 'clip' that holds ONLY Eight rounds. So these rifles are Junk to New Yorkers.

[92F]

I've got an Army and Marine recruiter both ready to sign me up. Should I go sign the USMC contract and THEN proceed to hand you your ass?

So, almost 7 years on and here I am still waiting for you to "hand me my ass"...

 

 

[sivispacem]

It's silly regulations like these that are clearly making a move beyond the containment[...]

That's the idea. A very popular rifle is the M1 Garand, which takes a special 'clip' that holds ONLY Eight rounds. So these rifles are Junk to New Yorkers.

Um, it's only illegal to sell magazines with a capacity of more than 7. Existing magazines aren't illegal.

[CygnusX1]

http://defcad.org/browse/.

 

also,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

[mdr279]

People claim self defence issues all the time. However, can someone tell me how many massacres have been stopped by a civilian shooting the criminal?

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

People claim self defence issues all the time. However, can someone tell me how many massacres have been stopped by a civilian shooting the criminal?

Not very many because most massacres occur in 'gun-free zones'..

[mdr279]

Edit: Mmmm interesting

 

May I also ask what is the attraction to owning a firearm? (Not trying to be hostile, legitimate question)

Edited January 18, 2013 by mdr279

[lil weasel]

May I also ask what is the attraction to owning a firearm?

The placement of a projectile in a small area at the target end. That ability under pressure of time and or situation.

The weight and function of a fine piece of machinery.

 

[Saggy]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I agree entirely. But that doesn't mean that firearms culture in the US doesn't have to share part of the blame.

 

As for restricting firearm ownership, I see no fundamental way a law-abiding citizen has their rights to firearm ownership restricted by undergoing a background check for private sales.

If you're committed to a psychiatric institution for observation or for drug rehabilitation, you're then submitted to the NICS as a "prohibited person". Your prohibited status remains despite whether your treatment is successful or what the circumstances surrounding the commitment were. So then to have your rights restored, you are then required to collect documentation and the rulings for your commitment, put them all together and then pay a large fee ($250 in some cases) to petition the court to have your firearms rights restored.

 

That is restrictive because it doesn't account for the people who cannot afford the $250 fee, or for the people who do not understand the law enough to begin this process themselves. In fact most people rely on the help from attorneys to accomplish this.

 

The government should do its own homework and take you off the prohibited list when you've been released and considered "treated" but they do not. They simple restrict, prohibit and leave it up to the citizens to pick up the pieces.

 

 

So there you go, background checks infringing on the rights of civilians to own a firearm. The only argument I've heard is that, "Well that's the price we have to pay," but the simple fact is that a lot of people disagree with that. I think it would be fine if the government didn't leave it up to the citizen to restore their rights, but it's a complete burden to the person who did nothing wrong. Let's review this whole thing...

 

-You are sick with an addiction or some mental health problem

-You are forced by law to attend treatment

-Your treatment is successful and you are no longer required to seek treatment

-Your firearm rights have been stripped from you with no means to restore them without a burden upon you

 

Maybe if there was some kind of place to write to say, "Hey, review my case I'm better now," it wouldn't be such a big thing but as it stands you literally have to petition the court that ordered your commitment in order to have your rights restored. It is completely up to the judge overseeing your case whether your rights are restored or not, he cost must be covered by you, etc.

 

Oh, and in the meantime, Obama wants tougher penalties for people that lie on background checks... Well, a lot of people that go through this aren't even notified that they are now a prohibited person, and they may not understand that what they went through was a "commitment" so when it comes to that question on the NICS background check many people lie without even realizing it. There is already a stiff penalty for perjury on the background checks, if this part of it was to be enforced much stricter then I would say there's an argument for self-incrimination.

 

 

But of course this is all the side of background checks that no one pays attention to because it's a "necessary evil".

[Chunkyman]

May I also ask what is the attraction to owning a firearm? (Not trying to be hostile, legitimate question)

They are really fun to shoot. It's hard to describe why, you just have to test it for yourself.

 

A particularly fun activity involves shooting Folgers coffee cans filled with water. Sometimes the water explodes out of them if you hit them just right. Soda cans/bottles work too, but it usually isn't as cool.

Target practice in general is usually fun.

 

More practical applications include hunting and self defense.

 

There's also the historical and artistic value many guns have, as seen in this picture.

[CygnusX1]

Edit: Mmmm interesting

 

May I also ask what is the attraction to owning a firearm? (Not trying to be hostile, legitimate question)

I guess you'd have to try it to understand. The immediate reward for pulling the trigger on a rifle beyond a .22 long is a punch to the shoulder. It takes some skill to line up iron sights at a target so far off it's hard to see, or look through a 'scope straight through' all the while taking account for drop and wind shift.

For example, buy a box of ammo, take out a shell, pry out a bullet, hold it up at shoulder height and drop it. It hits the floor quickly. Fired from a gun it drops just as quickly, so to hit a target hundreds of yards (or meters) off, you need to loft it quite a bit.

Keep it mind you have to squeeze the trigger while keeping everything lined up knowing you are about to take a punch.

 

It's not so easy.

 

Especially when stressed with time limits, like when surprised by a criminal.

 

 

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

May I also ask what is the attraction to owning a firearm? (Not trying to be hostile, legitimate question)

 

It's a lot like asking the appeal in owning a sports car. Guns are all around fun to shoot and own. Just to name a few reasons for gun ownership....

 

For one, as with any good that has been sold for hundreds of years, guns have developed into an art form. I personally think that some guns are beautiful. Just like the auto industry, those who design certain guns often put their passion into crafting that perfect gun. Guns are a collectible too.

 

 

Secondly, recreation. Several sports revolve around shooting. Many competitions, lessons, and good times in general can be developed around a nice shooting session with friends or family. It's a wonderful bonding experience. In fact, shooting at a range with someone special can make for a wonderful date.

 

 

Three, men especially love working with tools. As "lil weasel" posted, it feels wonderful have a well-functioning piece of machinery in your hands. Within our increasingly restrictive legal means, you can modify/tailor your gun to your personal pleasing. It can even be a hobby for many. Restoring old guns is actually enjoyable.

 

 

Four, self defense. I suspect that many of you from other countries don't realize the prevalence of illegal guns here in the US. Even the average teenage street gang set in urban areas have easy access to fully-automatic rifles (especially AKs), shotguns, pistols, and sub-machine guns (especially Uzis and Tec-9s). The least we could do is allow the law abiding citizens who are actually contributing to society to have access to semi-automatic weapons. Police often take at least 5-15 min to respond even in an upscale area. You wanna try your luck with a gun-wielding assailant or try to out run a gun?...Be my guest.

 

 

Five, varmint-control.

 

 

Six, tradition. Some of us actually come from a long line of gun owners who even pass their guns down. Especially in the southern region of our country. In many families (including my own), not knowing how to handle a firearm is like not knowing how to change a spare tire. You would certainly be the subject of jokes and criticism at the family gatherings (which is when much of the recreational shooting happens). Every generation of males on my mothers side has had to use their guns for self defense at least once.

 

 

Seven, our nation is one of the few in the world that allows it. It's a wonderful experience; and some of us feel compelled to capitalize on the luck. To be honest, gun ownership in the US seems like an expiring offer too. Even though years from now, the far left will say "no look, we're still allowing you to own our legal version of that gun"...What's the point anymore ? It's almost like allowing sports car ownership after banning convertible roofs, high speeds, nimble handling, two seats, etc.

 

 

As others have stated, most of the benefits of gun ownership and shooting can only be understood though actual experience. Many of my most left-leaning friends still enjoy going out to the range.

[AdvanceTrak RSC]

Guns are awesome

[Clem Fandango]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

Our mental health industry is terrible due to it's exclusive nature. It's just well-funded. Not to get too off topic, but I bet this kid was on some meds pushed by 'Big Pharma' 24/7. Meanwhile, the NRA comes out as the most demonized lobby in all of this.

 

If Mr. Lanza had smoked a blunt, got some pussy every once in a while, and chilled the f*ck out, he would've been fine. At least fine enough to not mow down several kids and his mother. That's how I would handle the patient.