The best guaranteed investment you can make right now

[quote name='The Crotch']Um.

Why, exactly, would you want to have a silencer?[/QUOTE]

I have one for my P22. I just enjoy target shooting and it was just something different to have.

I only brought it up in this thread because people were talking about guns as investments and if you are going to go that route then you should be looking at things that will become more difficult to find, weapons and accessories that are already made in pretty limited numbers. Like maybe a PS90 with a suppressor.

Personally, I wouldn't buy guns as investments but I do buy guns just because my friends and I like to go target shooting. But as far as buying guns to try and flip in a few years, it's much easier to make money in the markets, IMO.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Reduces noise pollution? What... where and how often do guns get used that firearm-created noise pollution is a problem?[/QUOTE]

Compton.;)
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Reduces noise pollution? What... where and how often do guns get used that firearm-created noise pollution is a problem?[/quote]

In Finland, they have that conscripted military shenanigans going on. IIRC they're supposed to practice with their guns all the time, so there are lots of shooting ranges. They don't want to have people go out to the styx to practice killing people, so they keep the ranges near cities and give people suppressors to keep the noise down.

As for America, it really doesn't matter. The argument for it is that now we'll be able to pull a Finland and build more shooting ranges inside urban sprawl, but honestly I'm of the mindset if you wanna go practice killing things, go drive off somewhere away from the population.

Suppressors are a novelty around here, and basically something to make your dick look a little bigger when you wave it around- and that's what gun ranges are about. I was part of that culture, I know it is. I'd bring in the FN FAL I had, and the noise that thing made made everyone jump, and little boys indoctinated into the camoflage baseball-cap and hiking boot wearing gun culture stare up in wonder of the awesome death potential.

That is until I smacked them with it and told them to get me a beer.
 
I strongly support guns as I grew up doing a lot of hunting with my dad. But I'm 100% behind putting the ban on assault rifles and silencers back. There's no reason for people to have those guns. Rifles and shotguns are for hunting, and those and/or a handgun is sufficient for self defense.

Assault rifles are for wars, and silencers for crimes, so we just don't need those out there. Gun nut collector's can take the shaft on that one IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I strongly support guns as I grew up doing a lot of hunting with my dad. But I'm 100% behind putting the ban on assault rifles and silencers back. There's no reason for people to have those guns. Rifles and shotguns are for hunting, and those and/or a handgun is sufficient for self defense.

Assault rifles are for wars, and silencers for crimes, so we just don't need those out there. Gun nut collector's can take the shaft on that one IMO.[/quote]

I'm pretty much in this camp. I don't mind the old magazine limits of ten rounds, either. Emptying an entire magazine into someone who stole your wallet = psycho.
 
The thing is that criminals always find a way to get the banned guns (they did for Assault Rifles), so I don't think they should be banned. Silencers...were banned? Don't get that one. If someone gets shot in a neighborhood, or a shot goes off, that's a warning to everyone else to call the cops.

Let us not forget that when the bill came up for re-passage in...I want to say 2003, that the bill ended in filibuster. Bush said he would've signed it, too. So it's puzzling why it didn't get to him.

As far as the OP goes, specific stock companies are always helpful, you know. I honestly would've thought you'd have suggested GM or Ford, since the Government is probably going to bail them out...again.
 
This is OT for this thread but if the government bails out GM and Ford, common stock holders have about a 99% chance of being wiped out. The debt holders would be okay but the common stock would get destroyed.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The thing is that criminals always find a way to get the banned guns (they did for Assault Rifles), so I don't think they should be banned.[/quote]

This is a hard fucking argument. You could say the same for drugs- Meth, heroine, cocaine are all b&, yet they're everywhere. That doesn't mean that they should be legal. However of course, you can't use a key of coke to fend off someone who wants to stab you, and the industry controlling guns is much more controlling about the standards of quality and safety of their product.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/illegalguns/

They have some ideas, but gun people see BRADY and instantly their nuts explode in rage. The truth is, a lot of what they say is accurate. The handgun I used to have I used a loophole to get: someone over 21 bought it for my 19th birthday. Theoretically I shouldn't have a handgun at 19. That's something Brady wants to crack down on, and I don't see that much of a problem with it.

The one thing I think should be in place is much more stringent regulations regarding who can and cannot buy firearms. There's absolutely no other purpose in a firearm except to kill something. Many people don't realize the magnitude of this. I've personally handled gunshot wounds from ignorant rednecks who think guns are bitchin and want as many as they can. I think that a license of some sort needs to be in place that requires extensive training and education on the impact of buying a lethal weapon before you can purchase one. Like a driver's license. It makes sense. Remember those gory movies from driver's education? You betcher balls they've got videos of gunshot injuries that they could show in these classes.

Obviously people are still shitty drivers, even with driver' licenses. I'm just saying that if you have some three-toothed inbred hick trying to buy a gun who doesn't know the difference between a deer and a cow or horse (my stepfather told me stories about how his ranch hand to paint COW and HORSE on the sides of their livestock because retarded hunters shot the livestock instead of deer), maybe a system designed to weed out the careless and uneducated would reduce the number of firearm related deaths.. and the number of people who shouldn't get guns that otherwise do.
 
The argument that since criminals can get assault rifles means they shouldn't be banned is just ridiculous. They are criminals.. criminals do alot of things that you and I don't do.
 
I'd also like to point out that most of the anti-gun lobby knows fuck all about what they're trying to ban. They see a scary, militant-looking weapon and instantly knee-jerk against it. There was a congresswoman who went on Hannity (I think) who wants to ban certain features present on some firearms. The example of a heat shield was given, asking her what it was. She dawdled around before finally, exasperated, threw out that she thought it was "a shoulder thing that goes up". Nobody knows exactly what a shoulder thing that goes up is, but a heat shield is a safety feature that keeps the operator from burning their hand. It definitely hurts your credibility (and makes you look like an arse) when you try to ban something you know nothing about. I guess that's just food-for-thought when it comes to the anti-gun lobby. Get people who know what they're talking about. Like me!

For instance, anti-gun folks went after hollow-point ammunition, calling it "cop killing ammo". Not exactly. Most police wear body armour, and hollowpoint is comparatively ineffective. However, the cheapest ammunition for cheap soviet weapons, made in the 1960's, is made with a steel core. Most ammo now are made with softer lead. To give a perspective, indoor ranges will allow fifty calibre lead ammunition, but they WON'T allow the steel core ammo. Why? That shit penetrates like a motherfucker. Blows holes in their backstops. What Brady should be worried about is the cheap 7.62 ammunition for Com-Bloc weapons that has a steel core, because it's essentially armour piercing ammunition. Commie guns are cheap, commie ammo is cheap, and both are powerful when used against people.

Just throwing that out there.

Restrict the ammunition and you restrict gun use. My dad stopped recreational shooting because his 7.62x39 ammunition became too expensive because- again- the steel core ammo is banned from ranges because it's too destructive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='homeland']The argument that since criminals can get assault rifles means they shouldn't be banned is just ridiculous. They are criminals.. criminals do alot of things that you and I don't do.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And I wouldn't argue they should be banned to keep them out of the hands of criminals or to reduce crime. There's just no good reason people should have assault rifles, machine guns, etc.

Will criminals still get them? Of course. Tack on huge extra penalties for using banned guns in a crime or for felons caught possessing a banned gun etc. (above and beyond penalties for using a gun period).
 
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with extended clips, silencers, semi auto assult rifles being avaliable to law abiding citizens. However, as suggested above, I am in favor of actual training requirements for gun owners. It is kind of crazy to know that anyone without a criminal background or history of mental illness could walk into a gun store with $1k and walk out with a Desert Eagle. There should be basic competance tests required to own firearms, even for law abiding citizens. That is actually something that could be put in place by the gun dealers though. If they really wanted to, they could require customers take a basic training course before selling them a gun.
 
Why would gun dealers make more work for themselves? They'd have to pay instructors and pay for the range and all the insurance headaches that go with it.
 
See the problem is even normal, law abiding citizens who passed a training course snap from time to time.

And they can do a lot more damage if they decide to go shoot up a crowd with assault rifles than they could with hand guns, single shot rifles etc. just due to clip capacity, rate of fire etc. Better not to have them legal IMO.

They aren't needed for hunting or self defense. They're made for wars and killing people which aren't valid reasons to have them legal to citizens, and nor are gun nuts that like to shoot them at ranges etc. There's plenty of rifles, shotguns and handguns they can own and shoot.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Why would gun dealers make more work for themselves? They'd have to pay instructors and pay for the range and all the insurance headaches that go with it.[/QUOTE]

Most dealers already offer or at least partner with firearms training programs so it wouldn't require a great deal of additional investment on their part.

Obviously they are not going to just offer themselves up for making the process of buying a gun more complicated but my point was that if they wanted to take this step, they certainly could.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']See the problem is even normal, law abiding citizens who passed a training course snap from time to time.

And they can do a lot more damage if they decide to go shoot up a crowd with assault rifles than they could with hand guns, single shot rifles etc. just due to clip capacity, rate of fire etc. Better not to have them legal IMO.

They aren't needed for hunting or self defense. They're made for wars and killing which aren't valid reasons to have them legal to citizens, and nor is gun nuts that like to shoot them at ranges etc.[/QUOTE]

I understand your point and to an extent I agree with it. However, what makes a 10 round clip better than a 20 round clip........or a 5 round clip? Where did this magic number of 10 come from?

Do you need the ability to fire 10 rounds in rapid succssion when hunting? I don't think so, so why even have 10 round clips? It is just a slippery slope, IMO.

Also, limiting a clip size isn't limiting the amount of rounds some nut could put into a crowd. It only means that there are a few seconds of pause between switching clips, since there is no limit on how many clips a consumer can own. Is that the next step, a limit on the amount of clips an owner can have?

Then we get to the whole "isn't needed" argument. How can you determine what is or isn't needed? How can the government and if they are allowed to what keeps them from saying what you need and don't need when it comes to other things like autos or land size etc? What gives anyone the right to say what someone else needs or doesn't need?
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']Personally, I don't see anything wrong with extended clips, silencers, semi auto assult rifles being avaliable to law abiding citizens. However, as suggested above, I am in favor of actual training requirements for gun owners. It is kind of crazy to know that anyone without a criminal background or history of mental illness could walk into a gun store with $1k and walk out with a Desert Eagle. There should be basic competance tests required to own firearms, even for law abiding citizens. That is actually something that could be put in place by the gun dealers though. If they really wanted to, they could require customers take a basic training course before selling them a gun.[/quote]

Desert Eagles are more in the $1300 range. ;)

Anyway. To address the top part of you post, the argument is against what you want, versus what you need. You don't really need to have a thirty round magazine (it's not a clip, btw). Deers aren't attacking you en masse, right? As we pointed out earlier, there's only one reason you could give towards "needing" a suppressor, and that's for the rather nebulous idea of noise pollution.

The problem is, and it seems like a lot of pro-gun people have issue seeing this, is that all of these tacticool gizmos you stick on your killin' stick are cool looking, but they aren't really helping you kill deers any more efficiently than some old guy with a lever-action. The basis for gun ownership is, as I gather, hunting and self defense. I don't like hunting, and most hunters act like assholes, but if they want to go out and make themselves feel manly by ending a critter's life, then they can deal with their issues. But, you don't really need thirty rounds of frangible ammo to take down a buck. So the argument for owning assault rifles dies when you match it with hunting (The difference being rugged weapons like SKS or AKs- those are actually pretty well suited towards hunting).

Okay, so then you bring in self defense. Again, thirty rounds to fend off someone who's ganking your television? I can understand tactical lights. I can understand lasers. But you're not going to get into a Live Free or Die Hard shootout with a coked-out criminal who wants your stuff. If you're going to kill someone over property (which I think is stupid), then you only need ten rounds in your weapon. I repeat that if you feel the need to empty more than ten rounds of ammunition at someone, you're either a shitty shot or a psycho.

I've used to be in gun culture. Ask most people who knew me a year or so ago here on CAG. I knew this shit in and out, and I know that the main reason people own assault weapons is because they want to think they're some soldier with a huge cock gun who could fend off the commies Red Dawn style. That's why I think assault weapons are stupid. It's about looking cool.

The idea of ten rounds just seems natural. It's a compromise between having enough ammunition to get off a couple of shots that you might have missed and some asshole going crazy and killing lots of people.

Of course the one argument to refute all of this is that people generally get all uppity when someone tells them what they do and don't need. :lol:
 
I appreciate and understand your opinion. I'm not a gun nut by any means but I do enjoy going to the shooting range every now and then. It's just one of my many side hobbies and I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to own an AK with a 30 round clip if I wanted to. Sure I don't "need it" but the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I need or don't need and I guess that is my main problem with this argument.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']I understand your point and to an extent I agree with it. However, what makes a 10 round clip better than a 20 round clip........or a 5 round clip? Where did this magic number of 10 come from?

Do you need the ability to fire 10 rounds in rapid succssion when hunting? I don't think so, so why even have 10 round clips? It is just a slippery slope, IMO.
[/quote]

I'd be more inclined to put it at 5. But I'd honestly rather see no semi automatic rifles out there. Hand guns yes as you may need multiple shots in self defense. Hunting, I never had a need for a semi automatic. You usually only have one shot. And if the deer etc. didn't run if you missed then it's easy enough to cock a new shell in a single shot rifle.

Also, limiting a clip size isn't limiting the amount of rounds some nut could put into a crowd. It only means that there are a few seconds of pause between switching clips, since there is no limit on how many clips a consumer can own. Is that the next step, a limit on the amount of clips an owner can have?
Click to expand...

That pause gives people in the crowd a chance to move in and take them down. The fewer shots in the magazine or clip, the sooner (and more often) they have to pause.

Then we get to the whole "isn't needed" argument. How can you determine what is or isn't needed? How can the government and if they are allowed to what keeps them from saying what you need and don't need when it comes to other things like autos or land size etc? What gives anyone the right to say what someone else needs or doesn't need?
Click to expand...

When it comes to issues of public safety, the government should have that power IMO. I don't think that's a slippery slope that leads into regulating land size, number of cars and other things unrelated to firearms. Though I guess you have the environmental angle, with regulations on MPG standards, regulations on water use during droughts etc.

What can I say, as a whole people are stupid, useless self serving cretins, governments have to have some power to protect the greater good from the idiocy of individuals.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']I appreciate and understand your opinion. I'm not a gun nut by any means but I do enjoy going to the shooting range every now and then. It's just one of my many side hobbies and I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to own an AK with a 30 round clip if I wanted to. Sure I don't "need it" but the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I need or don't need and I guess that is my main problem with this argument.[/quote]

magazine. It's called a magazine. Clip =/= magazine. I don't even like guns and that discrepancy still makes my ovaries burn. #-o

I'm just wondering, why do you think you need to be able to own one? Please don't say "because I can". Why a semi-auto rifle? Why such a large-capacity magazine?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
When it comes to issues of public safety, the government should have that power IMO. I don't think that's a slippery slope that leads into regulating land size, number of cars etc. Though I guess you have the environmental angle, with regulations on MPG standards, regulations on water use during droughts etc.

What can I say, as a whole people are stupid, useless self serving cretins, governments have to have some power to protect the greater good from the idiocy of individuals.[/QUOTE]


And that is my problem, what makes the governments idocy better than the idocy of the common citizen?

If it is a public safety issue then why would something similar not apply to autos or even food? Now I could be wrong, and please correct me if you can find the facts to correct me, but if I remember correctly more people die each year from heart disease (poor eating habits) and traffic accidents than die from issues related to guns. So if public safety is the concern, should the government be limiting the amount of horsepower in my car or limiting my ability to eat candy?
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']And that is my problem, what makes the governments idocy better than the idocy of the common citizen?

If it is a public safety issue then why would something similar not apply to autos or even food? Now I could be wrong, and please correct me if you can find the facts to correct me, but if I remember correctly more people die each year from heart disease (poor eating habits) and traffic accidents than die from issues related to guns. So if public safety is the concern, should the government be limiting the amount of horsepower in my car or limiting my ability to eat candy?[/quote]

The argument seems valid.. except that cars and candy aren't designed specifically to end life. This sole purpose puts them in a category where they deserve much more scrutiny.
 
[quote name='Hex']magazine. It's called a magazine. Clip =/= magazine. I don't even like guns and that discrepancy still makes my ovaries burn. #-o

I'm just wondering, why do you think you need to be able to own one? Please don't say "because I can". Why a semi-auto rifle? Why such a large-capacity magazine?[/QUOTE]

Clip / Magazine....blah blah blah. Clip is pretty common slang for magainze, I don't see the problem but anyway.

Ar far as MAGAZINES go, no specific reason at all. I'm just playing devils advocate here. When it comes to semi auto rifles, I just enjoy shooting them.

My problem is more along the lines of the government telling me what I need.

If you want to restrict certain items, make them more expensive. That $200 ATF fee you have to pay before you can buy a $500 silencer, why not add something like that to extended MAGAZINES?
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']And that is my problem, what makes the governments idocy better than the idocy of the common citizen?
[/QUOTE]

The average persons a dumbshit with limited education and can't think outside of the box of what's best for them that lets them do whatever they want to do with no impunity and no concern for the greater good.. Most people in congress etc. are well above average on education, life experience etc. Not to mention decisions are made after hearings with testimony from experts etc etc. They also care about the greater good, or they would have stayed in the private sector.

That's an elitist view for sure, but as I've said many times I have not problems being called an elitist! I wear mantle proudly. :D


[quote name='BillyBob29']
If it is a public safety issue then why would something similar not apply to autos or even food? Now I could be wrong, and please correct me if you can find the facts to correct me, but if I remember correctly more people die each year from heart disease (poor eating habits) and traffic accidents than die from issues related to guns. So if public safety is the concern, should the government be limiting the amount of horsepower in my car or limiting my ability to eat candy?[/QUOTE]

This is really apples and oranges, but we have the FDA to test and regulate food and medicine. Safety standards for cars that have to be met for them to to be able to be sold and so forth.

Banning assault rifles and silencers are along those lines IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']This is really apples and oranges, but we have the FDA to test and regulate food and medicine. Safety standards for cars that have to be met for them to to be able to be sold and so forth.

Banning assault rifles and silencers are along those lines IMO.[/QUOTE]

I understand the difference but it all goes to the point of the government attempting to put limits on my actions, actions that are causing no harm to anyone else. The argument of public saftey doesn't hold water to me when there are many other things the government could fo, in theory, that would provide a safer life for the average citizen.

Yes there is the potential for harm with firearms but you shouldn't be regulating based on potential. That is completey flawed logic, IMO.
 
Why does someone need to own a sports car designed for driving 200 mph when 75 is the max limit? Why shouldn't we pass laws that make all passenger cars 3 cylinders with a top speed of 60mph?

Oh right, I forgot, cars aren't "designed" to kill people. So that makes all the difference here, right? :roll:

It's true that assault rifles are designed to kill people. So? How many assault rifles are in the hands of average citizens in the U.S? A lot. How often does it become a problem? How much of those "problems" do you REALLY believe you'll fix by outlawing them?

I bring up the car argument because IF you passed laws only allowing low performance vehicles, you would save far more lives than banning assault weapons. But that logic fails on the ears of those that are hung up on what guns are "designed" to do.

I think you really need to analyze WHY you would want to ban certain weapons. What is the end goal? Is it saving lives? Because the argument falls apart when compared to other possible legislation that would save far more lives.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why does someone need to own a sports car designed for driving 200 mph when 75 is the max limit? Why shouldn't we pass laws that make all passenger cars 3 cylinders with a top speed of 60mph?

Oh right, I forgot, cars aren't "designed" to kill people. So that makes all the difference here, right? :roll:[/quote]

Because then Daniel Craig looks a lot less sexy in his Bond movies.

Then again, he'd look a lot less sexy without that suppressed UMP. fuck. Like I've said, I'm kind of on both sides of the issue. I don't like guns, but the issues stemming from gun ownership are idiots owning them- which compared, as you said, to the number of guns results in a comparatively low number of deaths/injuries compared to cars; the last being that criminals use them. The criminal issue is fucking insane. The solution, to me, is stringent-as-fuck licenses for gun ownership.

I think the idea behind banning them all from private ownership is because ideally, no "accidental" (caveat being no gun-related incident is accidental) deaths are better than some deaths. Personally I think the benefits versus the possible issues arising from gun ownership cancel each other out, leaving me not really giving a fuck until I have to patch up some asshole who decided it would be totally tits to let his room-mate wave the loaded AR15 around.

Nobody can really give me a reason why they should own an assault weapon though, aside from "becuss ah wants one".
 
It's just time to agree to disagree here, as none of us will concede our point.

I'll personally never support owning guns for any purpose other than hunting (rifles/shotguns), though only oppose assault rifles, automatic weapons, silencers etc. as I see no functional purpose for them other than making killing people easier so those things being legal just rubs me the wrong way. Helping gun nuts get their rocks off isn't a functional purpose.

But otherwise guns are out their and we have to live with them. It's a shame guns, explosives etc. were ever invented. There'd be a lot less violence (at least lethal violence) in today's world if people still had to fight it out with knives, swords and bows and arrows! :D
 
Well yes we have to agree to disagree, it's the same circular argument as last time it came up.

But, those weapons actually DO serve a functional purpose, to some people. I know this argument is absolutely ridiculous to you already - but most people that own those types of guns also believe (as do I) that the founding fathers wanted the people to be armed to the teeth for when/if the government needed to be put in check.

Now I know all the arguments of "yeah but the government has tanks, and helicopters, and nukes so should we allow people to own those to?" and we have been down that road before in other threads. Suffice it to say, you do have to draw the line somewhere, when it comes to keeping an armed populace for the government to fear, we just disagree on where that line is. I believe few dozen dudes with automatic weapons using guerilla warfare outmatches a whole tank battalion (assuming our volunteer army ever could be convinced to attack citizens, but we did have Waco and Ruby Ridge).

I am perfectly fine with people that believe those guns serve no purpose and choose not to have them. I am not fine with people pushing those beliefs on everyone else with arguments showing ridiculously low statistics of violence compared to so many other statistics. Cigarettes, Liquor, Cars - all cause far more death and suffering by several magnitudes.

In other words, people being allowed to own those guns has almost no measurable effect on your safety, rights, or pursuit of happiness. But advocating bans and government intervention most definitely infringes on others and their pursuit of happiness.
 
That's where I was going with it. Conservatives were all about taking away gay marriage but they'll be up in arms (maybe literally) if the govt tries to take away guns. It sucks when the same logic that is used to persecute one group of people is then used in retaliation. Maybe a compromise is in order?
 
Well, California already has rules in place that are basically akin to the national assault weapons ban. :x
 
Thrust is right. Sorry, get over it.

Assault weapons are wars. That's exactly right. Wars against the government.

A person with a handgun only requires a "cop" or two in order to be killed or captured.

A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun requires a handful of "cops" in order to be killed or captured.

A person with an assault rifle requires a squad or platoon of "cops" in order to be killed or captured.

If the government ever gets tired of taking over 40% of your income to redistribute to their largest campaign donors via bailout or taxbreak OR having "debates" before taking away another right guaranteed in the Constitution (4th Amendment anybody?), you'll thank your gods for those nutjobs with big guns distracting the government while you find a place to hide.

...

As a corollary, the more heavily armed the law abiding citizenry, the less of a standing army is required to "protect" the country.
 
[quote name='depascal22']That's where I was going with it. Conservatives were all about taking away gay marriage but they'll be up in arms (maybe literally) if the govt tries to take away guns. It sucks when the same logic that is used to persecute one group of people is then used in retaliation. Maybe a compromise is in order?[/QUOTE]

Sure. I'm all about compromise. However, Gay's have never had the right's to be "married". "Conservatives" have routinely voted against it. A court tried to decide they knew better than the majority what the definition was, that's all.

It would be more accurate to say that Conservatives haven't changed the definition of marriage for gays yet.

So one group is trying to preserve the rights that have always existed for everyone. Another group is trying to create new one's.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']However, Gay's have never had the right's to be "married". [/quote]

So one group is trying to preserve the rights that have always existed for everyone.
Click to expand...

Uh. You just said two different things in one post. Also stop using unnecessary apostrophes.
 
thrust is saying that gays are trying to get rights they never had while gun owners have always had those rights.

I agree with you, thrust but my gist is that by voting yes on Prop. 8, the people decided to take civil rights away from people. Until then, they had the right to marry. Now what's going to stop legislators from going after guns? Why is it OK to take away the right to be happy for one group of people but it would be appalling to consider repealing the second amendment? As long as we're taking away rights, let's finish the job.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']As a corollary, the more heavily armed the law abiding citizenry, the less of a standing army is required to "protect" the country.[/quote]

:roll: Now this is just fucking stupid.
 
FoC is right. Other countries wouldn't dare invade because of the perception that every American has a armory in their house.

His other point is that the government hasn't really gone overboard with alot of stuff because we could have an armed uprising at any minute. We're armed not only to protect against foreign enemies but against our own government.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Why is it OK to take away the right to be happy for one group of people but it would be appalling to consider repealing the second amendment? As long as we're taking away rights, let's finish the job.[/quote]

It's cute that depascal22 thinks that marriage = happiness. I wonder what the divorce rates would be for same sex couples if gay marriage was allowed on a large scale across the country. I'd bet that it would be significantly lower than heterosexual unions. I base this solely on the idea that many gays are fighting so hard for it to be assigned as a constitutional right. Therefore, they would appreciate marriage more and fight through the bullshit to make a union work.
 
[quote name='neschamp']It's cute that depascal22 thinks that marriage = happiness. I wonder what the divorce rates would be for same sex couples if gay marriage was allowed on a large scale across the country. I'd bet that it would be significantly lower than heterosexual unions. I base this solely on the idea that many gays are fighting so hard for it to be assigned as a constitutional right. Therefore, they would appreciate marriage more and fight through the bullshit to make a union work.[/quote]

Look, it's not a perfect equation. I'm sure that gun ownership, by itself, doesn't necessarily mean happiness. I should've said that the govt. is taking away chances at being happy. Is that better now?

I'm just saying that conservatives have no one to blame but themselves if someone gets a gun ban up for a vote. You've already shown no regard for the Constitution when it comes to gay rights (or anything else that comes with the neo-con agenda). Don't expect anyone to rush to your side when this eventually becomes a hot issue.
 
It's not that I believe it could happen but the door has been opened. Once other constitutional rights have been trampled, what's stopping this from being next.
 
[quote name='Hex']In Finland, they have that conscripted military shenanigans going on. IIRC they're supposed to practice with their guns all the time, so there are lots of shooting ranges. They don't want to have people go out to the styx to practice killing people, so they keep the ranges near cities and give people suppressors to keep the noise down.

As for America, it really doesn't matter. The argument for it is that now we'll be able to pull a Finland and build more shooting ranges inside urban sprawl, but honestly I'm of the mindset if you wanna go practice killing things, go drive off somewhere away from the population.

Suppressors are a novelty around here, and basically something to make your dick look a little bigger when you wave it around- and that's what gun ranges are about. I was part of that culture, I know it is. I'd bring in the FN FAL I had, and the noise that thing made made everyone jump, and little boys indoctinated into the camoflage baseball-cap and hiking boot wearing gun culture stare up in wonder of the awesome death potential.

That is until I smacked them with it and told them to get me a beer.[/quote]
There was a guy in my communications class who gave a speech about hunting, there was some picture he showed of a bunch of kids dressed just like that. Camouflaged clothes and orange ball caps, sitting next to a dead deer. Was kinda creepy actually.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Thrust is right. Sorry, get over it.

Assault weapons are wars. That's exactly right. Wars against the government.

A person with a handgun only requires a "cop" or two in order to be killed or captured.

A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun requires a handful of "cops" in order to be killed or captured.

A person with an assault rifle requires a squad or platoon of "cops" in order to be killed or captured.

If the government ever gets tired of taking over 40% of your income to redistribute to their largest campaign donors via bailout or taxbreak OR having "debates" before taking away another right guaranteed in the Constitution (4th Amendment anybody?), you'll thank your gods for those nutjobs with big guns distracting the government while you find a place to hide.

...

As a corollary, the more heavily armed the law abiding citizenry, the less of a standing army is required to "protect" the country.[/quote]
So the military watches us, the "nutjobs" watch the military, so who the hell is watching the nutjobs who are armed to the teeth?

Hell, some of these people have more fire power than most soldiers. I'd be more afraid of a civilian with a cache of weapons than a trained military unit, at least they're supposed to have discipline.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']There was a guy in my communications class who gave a speech about hunting, there was some picture he showed of a bunch of kids dressed just like that. Camouflaged clothes and orange ball caps, sitting next to a dead deer. Was kinda creepy actually.[/quote]

Yeah dude. I was at a range one time where this guy was teaching his kid to shoot a .40 handgun. The kid did okay, aside from getting hit in the nose the first time with the handgun... until he started POINTING the gun at people. He looked downrange and pointed at some guy, asking daddy what he was shooting.. except the handgun was doing the pointing.

The dad was smart in smacking the boy and not letting him shoot it anymore.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']So the military watches us, the "nutjobs" watch the military, so who the hell is watching the nutjobs who are armed to the teeth?

Hell, some of these people have more fire power than most soldiers. I'd be more afraid of a civilian with a cache of weapons than a trained military unit, at least they're supposed to have discipline.[/quote]

The military watching us would include the "nutjobs". The "nutjobs" are a subset of the civilian sector of a government vs. people conflict.

In our current setup, there are no "well regulated militias". That is by design of our government. So, the lone heavily wacko is a possibility albeit very rare.

If "well regulated militias" were around, those lone wackos would be parts of a group. The group would have government connections and members exhibiting asocial behavior could be investigated and, if need be, stripped of their weapons.

To address the lone wacko possibility, a wacko carrying five machine guns is less of a threat than five guys each carrying a machine gun. Weight and visibility of weapons severely limit killing ability and tactics.

As far as a trained military unit, you're safe until their commander orders them to kill you. That's what people like me are worried about.

Now...

Would you rather have a wacko overloaded with guns chasing you or have a squad of military men tracking you with an UAV and setting up an ambush?


To address evanft ...

Learn some history.

Before guns were invented, governments routinely disarmed civilians to enforce unfair laws. An armed citizenry keeps a government honest.

In American history, the US nuked Japan precisely because it could not win an invasion of Japan. The estimated casualties to establish a landing strip on Japan were greater than the number of US soldiers that died in Korea, Vietnam and both Iraq wars. Why couldn't the US win an invasion? The US would have been fighting the entire Japanese population, not just a battered army.

...

To address the bigger picture of our standing army ...

The US spends $1 trillion a year on its military. What do we get for it?

If we didn't spend the $1 trillion a year on military and every sane citizen was armed and organized to the defense of the country, who would invade us?

Our biggest enemies have thousands of miles of ocean and land between us and the continental US.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']every sane citizen was armed and organized to the defense of the country, who would invade us? [/quote]

Keep in mind, though, not everyone wants to fight or even hold a lethal weapon. I'm not saying half the populace wouldn't be up to the idea, but a good chunk of people aren't into killing somebody- myself included.

Of course, those of us who don't want guns can pick up the medpack, rite? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top