|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k.
I doubt you could find those 3 for under 5K, semi versions yes, auto no. In the future 3D printing will be cheaper. You will see push back from gun manufactures, or any manufactures be it computer or cars. If your not a felon is not illegal to make your own firearms (no full-auto,SBR,DD,or AOW) But currently this market is small. I have never forged an AR-15 Lower (this is the part that is legally the gun, think of the frame of a car), but I have bought a 80% AR Lower that I am going to mill out to make it complete an 80% lower is this![[image loading]](http://aresarmor.com/store/media/ecom/prodxl/80AR-15%20Anodized%20Lower%20Receiver.jpg)
I think the state dept is trying to make a case of ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations which restricts certain items from being exported. Some things such as night vision goggles, scopes, or even binoculars can not be exported to certain countries. There is an exception to this. That is if you give the item away non profit. The item here is IP blueprints.
This will be a 1st Amendment question. I can not think of the guys name (someone here will probably know it). But this current case is similar to that. The case in question was cryptology in email's in the early 90s, so it fell under ITAR. If my memory serves me right in order to circumvent ITAR the guy did not sell the crypto program but rather the code so you could make your own program.
Right now the cheapest way to make your self a gun is a CNC machine and some blueprints
|
On May 10 2013 17:37 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:36 heliusx wrote:
You know damn well I was talking about .50 bmg linked ammo. Why on earth are you talking about .50 BMG? I'm talking about the M2 Carbine, not the M2 HMG. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:
For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k. Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that cost about $5 each.)
The only time I brought up ammo was when I posted about the .50 m2. How you came to the conclusion I was talking about .30 cal ammo is beyond me.
|
On May 10 2013 17:40 heliusx wrote:
The only time I brought up ammo was when I posted about the .50 m2. How you came to the conclusion I was talking about .30 cal ammo is beyond me.
So you thought I was grouping a heavy machine gun alongside two small arms, and claiming they were around the same price?
...ok, this is insane. Let's leave it at this: M2 HMGs cost a ridiculous amount of money on the market and fire slugs that cost an arm and a leg. M2 Carbines cost far less and fire reasonably-priced ammunition.
|
On May 10 2013 17:50 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:40 heliusx wrote:
The only time I brought up ammo was when I posted about the .50 m2. How you came to the conclusion I was talking about .30 cal ammo is beyond me. So you thought I was grouping a heavy machine gun alongside two small arms, and claiming they were around the same price? ...ok, this is insane. Let's leave it at this: M2 HMGs cost a ridiculous amount of money on the market and fire slugs that cost an arm and a leg. M2 Carbines cost far less and fire reasonably-priced ammunition.
Not really. He was talking about overthrowing a 3rd world country. This also might surprise you but sometimes people make assumptions when others aren't clear in what they are saying.
|
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters.
|
On May 10 2013 17:57 wei2coolman wrote:
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters.
If you can find rounds for a quarters right now please let me know where.
|
On May 10 2013 18:08 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:57 wei2coolman wrote:
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters. If you can find rounds for a quarters right now please let me know where.
Some rounds for some quarterS.
http://mobile.walmart.com/m/phoenix;jsessionid=38F2BBEAEBB4508C832DF99212665F52#ip/Federal-Champion-9mm-Full-Metal-Jacket-Rounds/17617401
Do you guys even google? 50 rounds for 11bucks something, do the math.
|
On May 10 2013 18:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:08 norjoncal wrote:On May 10 2013 17:57 wei2coolman wrote:
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters. If you can find rounds for a quarters right now please let me know where. Some rounds for some quarterS. http://mobile.walmart.com/m/phoenix;jsessionid=38F2BBEAEBB4508C832DF99212665F52#ip/Federal-Champion-9mm-Full-Metal-Jacket-Rounds/17617401Do you guys even google? 50 rounds for 11bucks something, do the math.
Your link does not work.
Besides walmart only sells ammo in store
Have you tried buying ammo recently?
Most walmarts have looked like this for the past 6 months
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GI7E5El5Dl0/UQiUtU3Da4I/AAAAAAAAF2I/4Pm8Km9QG2k/s1600/Walmart-ammo.jpg)
Normally look like this
![[image loading]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Wal-Mart_Ammunition_Case.jpg)
Finding it is hard.Finding it cheap or normal prices is impossible right now. But the run on ammo has pushed me to save so I can finally buy a reloading press.
|
I go to bed for one night and people start talking about overthrowing third world countries. What has this thread devolved to?
|
On May 10 2013 15:26 LuckyFool wrote:
Is a gun ban to improve the suicide rate even the right way to try and improve the suicide rate.
I view gun bans like sweeping dust under the rug- it might make things look better but you haven't really resolved the root cause of the issues. There's hundreds of millions of firearms floating around in this country, banning them won't make them all go away. Bad guys and guys who really want them will still find ways. Drugs are illegal in most states and a hell of alot of users carry on. I don't view guns much different, and unlike a random crackhead who illegally pots it up next door, now there's a criminal next door who could be a threat because the only real way to defend myself from him is illegal.
Suicide rates by guns would go down, mass shootings would probably go down, but can anyone really predict what new problems could arise if guns were banned and if we would actually be any better off really. 3 mass shootings a year avoided at the cost of 3,000 additional home invasions per year? Who knows.
I have pretty libertarian views on gun control in general. The reason gun control is such a hot topic is it's one of the few tangible things a citizen has a right to that they can use to defend themselves against even unthinkable things like an oppressive government. It might not happen in our lifetimes or even in 3 or 4 generations from now but I feel that removing guns is the first step down a path of a potential monopoly where only one side has all the power, that has rarely done good things in the past and throughout history. Today we could be banning assault rifles, tomorrow it's all the rest of the firearms and who knows where it stops from there...Guns are different than most other things for those reasons I think and which is why people care about this so much.
It's really quite a heavy decision that lots of people don't really think through fully I feel. We can't even know exactly what it would do, either in the short term or the long. Or if it would really even help. Take Chicago for example, one of the harder areas of the country to buy a gun and yet their gun crime is among the highest in the nation.
First off, guns don't have an infinitely long street life; introduce strict gun bans, confiscate guns, etc. and you can severely reduce the number of guns in the country within a decade.
That said, only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply have some common-sense regulation on guns like we have on cars and alcohol. Things like background checks and a gun registry so you can trace guns used in a crime. Make people more responsible if their guns are used in a crime. Force people to actually take firearms safety courses if they intend to buy a gun. Things like this. It would have no effect on law-abiding citizens, as they could still get a gun if they wanted to, it would just be slightly less convenient. Yet, that's the sad part; groups like the NRA don't like these measures because, apparently, their convenience is more important than others' lives. And don't bring up that nonsense about privacy in background checks or confiscation of guns. I have had a background check done on me for all kinds of jobs, so you can deal with it if you want to own an incredibly deadly tool, and a worry about mass confiscation is simply fear-mongering and has nothing to do with an actual gun registry that could track firearms to their owner or point of purchase.
|
On May 10 2013 23:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 15:26 LuckyFool wrote:
Is a gun ban to improve the suicide rate even the right way to try and improve the suicide rate.
I view gun bans like sweeping dust under the rug- it might make things look better but you haven't really resolved the root cause of the issues. There's hundreds of millions of firearms floating around in this country, banning them won't make them all go away. Bad guys and guys who really want them will still find ways. Drugs are illegal in most states and a hell of alot of users carry on. I don't view guns much different, and unlike a random crackhead who illegally pots it up next door, now there's a criminal next door who could be a threat because the only real way to defend myself from him is illegal.
Suicide rates by guns would go down, mass shootings would probably go down, but can anyone really predict what new problems could arise if guns were banned and if we would actually be any better off really. 3 mass shootings a year avoided at the cost of 3,000 additional home invasions per year? Who knows.
I have pretty libertarian views on gun control in general. The reason gun control is such a hot topic is it's one of the few tangible things a citizen has a right to that they can use to defend themselves against even unthinkable things like an oppressive government. It might not happen in our lifetimes or even in 3 or 4 generations from now but I feel that removing guns is the first step down a path of a potential monopoly where only one side has all the power, that has rarely done good things in the past and throughout history. Today we could be banning assault rifles, tomorrow it's all the rest of the firearms and who knows where it stops from there...Guns are different than most other things for those reasons I think and which is why people care about this so much.
It's really quite a heavy decision that lots of people don't really think through fully I feel. We can't even know exactly what it would do, either in the short term or the long. Or if it would really even help. Take Chicago for example, one of the harder areas of the country to buy a gun and yet their gun crime is among the highest in the nation. First off, guns don't have an infinitely long street life; introduce strict gun bans, confiscate guns, etc. and you can severely reduce the number of guns in the country within a decade. That said, only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply have some common-sense regulation on guns like we have on cars and alcohol. Things like background checks and a gun registry so you can trace guns used in a crime. Make people more responsible if their guns are used in a crime. Force people to actually take firearms safety courses if they intend to buy a gun. Things like this. It would have no effect on law-abiding citizens, as they could still get a gun if they wanted to, it would just be slightly less convenient. Yet, that's the sad part; groups like the NRA don't like these measures because, apparently, their convenience is more important than others' lives. And don't bring up that nonsense about privacy in background checks or confiscation of guns. I have had a background check done on me for all kinds of jobs, so you can deal with it if you want to own an incredibly deadly tool, and a worry about mass confiscation is simply fear-mongering and has nothing to do with an actual gun registry that could track firearms to their owner or point of purchase.
And only the most hardcore conservatives think there shouldn't be any bans on guns. the NRA only has its teeth because the democratic party keeps making a fool of itself and says things just like this. You think Confiscating guns, "strict gun bans" , a national gun registry are exactly the things that the NRA feeds off of. They literally package how passive liberals are about taking away the guns and then pass that onto their members to get into a hissy about it. Then you have the fucking balls to go on and critizise the NRA for "not likeing these measures for being less convenient" when you LITERALY JUST went over the exact steps of how to take away peoples guns. You complain about how background checks are nothing when you LITEARLY JUST went over how it would be used to take away peoples guns. This is exactly the problem why we can have "reasonable gun control" in america, when we have people like you advocating unreasonable gun control.
You are advocating for guns to be banned and by your own admission you are a hardcore liberal. You attacked your own credibility at the beginning of the post and then spent the whole post showing why you are apart of that discredited bunch.
On May 10 2013 23:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I go to bed for one night and people start talking about overthrowing third world countries. What has this thread devolved to?
People went fearmongering about 3d printing guns. Despite the fact that its impossible to make a working barrel for them and how a 3d printer costs as much as you need to buy enough gear in Somalia to overthrow a small country. Which is probably true.
|
|
|
On May 10 2013 18:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:08 norjoncal wrote:On May 10 2013 17:57 wei2coolman wrote:
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters. If you can find rounds for a quarters right now please let me know where. Some rounds for some quarterS. http://mobile.walmart.com/m/phoenix;jsessionid=38F2BBEAEBB4508C832DF99212665F52#ip/Federal-Champion-9mm-Full-Metal-Jacket-Rounds/17617401Do you guys even google? 50 rounds for 11bucks something, do the math.
Keep in mind that those are just target rounds. They aren't what you want in your gun when you need to shoot someone.
EDIT: In other words, that's why they're cheaper. Getting a good defense round will cost at least 2-3 times as much.
|
@Sermokala
Nah, it's cool, I saw the logic behind it.
Just thought it was funny to wake up to people discussing overthrowing 3rd world countries.
|
On May 10 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 18:08 norjoncal wrote:On May 10 2013 17:57 wei2coolman wrote:
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters. If you can find rounds for a quarters right now please let me know where. Some rounds for some quarterS. http://mobile.walmart.com/m/phoenix;jsessionid=38F2BBEAEBB4508C832DF99212665F52#ip/Federal-Champion-9mm-Full-Metal-Jacket-Rounds/17617401Do you guys even google? 50 rounds for 11bucks something, do the math. Keep in mind that those are just target rounds. They aren't what you want in your gun when you need to shoot someone. EDIT: In other words, that's why they're cheaper. Getting a good defense round will cost at least 2-3 times as much.
Lol, is it really a concern that "defense rounds" (people killing rounds) are expensive? If you're at the range where you are using your gun the vast majority of the time, if not all the time, then you're using "target rounds", or you should be. And to sort of imply that shooting a person with a target round will not result in a fatality if hit in a vital area is silly. All rounds fired from real guns are potentially lethal -- even rubber bullets if they connect with the right spots! Cheap 9mm rounds are potentially lethal just like other 9mm rounds, and besides, you're using those rounds at the range and keeping a low supply of the more expensive "better rounds" for you home defense needs if you're doing it right. A quick Google search turns up many explanations of FMJ 9mm use and lethality. 2 in the chest and 1 through the head, and the guy is not going to know the difference between FMJ and hollow point.
+ Show Spoiler +
Skip to 1:05
"Being a 9mm, some people might say, well, it's only a 9mm, it won't do anything. But, when I put two rounds through your heart and one through your head, you won't know the difference. And neither will the enemy."
And before someone pounces on hunting needing stronger rounds too: Hunting is another story and does not concern the various 9mm rounds raised in this post string
|
On May 10 2013 23:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@Sermokala
Nah, it's cool, I saw the logic behind it.
Just thought it was funny to wake up to people discussing overthrowing 3rd world countries.
Hey man those job creators worked hard to create those third world job creatorships.
|
On May 10 2013 23:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2013 15:26 LuckyFool wrote:
Is a gun ban to improve the suicide rate even the right way to try and improve the suicide rate.
I view gun bans like sweeping dust under the rug- it might make things look better but you haven't really resolved the root cause of the issues. There's hundreds of millions of firearms floating around in this country, banning them won't make them all go away. Bad guys and guys who really want them will still find ways. Drugs are illegal in most states and a hell of alot of users carry on. I don't view guns much different, and unlike a random crackhead who illegally pots it up next door, now there's a criminal next door who could be a threat because the only real way to defend myself from him is illegal.
Suicide rates by guns would go down, mass shootings would probably go down, but can anyone really predict what new problems could arise if guns were banned and if we would actually be any better off really. 3 mass shootings a year avoided at the cost of 3,000 additional home invasions per year? Who knows.
I have pretty libertarian views on gun control in general. The reason gun control is such a hot topic is it's one of the few tangible things a citizen has a right to that they can use to defend themselves against even unthinkable things like an oppressive government. It might not happen in our lifetimes or even in 3 or 4 generations from now but I feel that removing guns is the first step down a path of a potential monopoly where only one side has all the power, that has rarely done good things in the past and throughout history. Today we could be banning assault rifles, tomorrow it's all the rest of the firearms and who knows where it stops from there...Guns are different than most other things for those reasons I think and which is why people care about this so much.
It's really quite a heavy decision that lots of people don't really think through fully I feel. We can't even know exactly what it would do, either in the short term or the long. Or if it would really even help. Take Chicago for example, one of the harder areas of the country to buy a gun and yet their gun crime is among the highest in the nation. First off, guns don't have an infinitely long street life; introduce strict gun bans, confiscate guns, etc. and you can severely reduce the number of guns in the country within a decade. That said, only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply have some common-sense regulation on guns like we have on cars and alcohol. Things like background checks and a gun registry so you can trace guns used in a crime. Make people more responsible if their guns are used in a crime. Force people to actually take firearms safety courses if they intend to buy a gun. Things like this. It would have no effect on law-abiding citizens, as they could still get a gun if they wanted to, it would just be slightly less convenient. Yet, that's the sad part; groups like the NRA don't like these measures because, apparently, their convenience is more important than others' lives. And don't bring up that nonsense about privacy in background checks or confiscation of guns. I have had a background check done on me for all kinds of jobs, so you can deal with it if you want to own an incredibly deadly tool, and a worry about mass confiscation is simply fear-mongering and has nothing to do with an actual gun registry that could track firearms to their owner or point of purchase. And only the most hardcore conservatives think there shouldn't be any bans on guns. the NRA only has its teeth because the democratic party keeps making a fool of itself and says things just like this. You think Confiscating guns, "strict gun bans" , a national gun registry are exactly the things that the NRA feeds off of. They literally package how passive liberals are about taking away the guns and then pass that onto their members to get into a hissy about it. Then you have the fucking balls to go on and critizise the NRA for "not likeing these measures for being less convenient" when you LITERALY JUST went over the exact steps of how to take away peoples guns. You complain about how background checks are nothing when you LITEARLY JUST went over how it would be used to take away peoples guns. This is exactly the problem why we can have "reasonable gun control" in america, when we have people like you advocating unreasonable gun control. You are advocating for guns to be banned and by your own admission you are a hardcore liberal. You attacked your own credibility at the beginning of the post and then spent the whole post showing why you are apart of that discredited bunch.
It sounds like you read a third of my post and then just felt like bitching so you filled the rest in with your imagination.
I didn't go through the steps on how to take away peoples guns. You literally pulled that out of your ass. In fact, I said, as I have said in this thread multiple times, that
a gun registry has nothing to do with taking away people guns. These are completely separate bills and completely separate consequences. Unless you can show me that a gun registry will somehow set a legal precedent to make it more likely that gun confiscation will be enacted, you are making shit up.
Every car that can be legally driven on the road can be traced to its owner. Does that mean that the government is going to suddenly confiscate our cars? Nope. It allows them to trace cars for criminal or other scenarios. The government takes the census every 10 years. Does this mean that they suddenly have a legal precedent to just track down people they don't like and black-bag them? Nope. This is fear-mongering at its finest; a simple list does not set any kind of precedent that is going to allow the government to do something that is completely unrelated.
Also, background checks in no way contribute to confiscating guns. That is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard in the gun debate.
The only unreasonable person here is you, and it's because you're doing the exact thing hardcore conservatives do; you make up strawmen and then fear-monger based off of your imaginary opponents. Grow up.
|
On May 11 2013 00:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:25 Sermokala wrote:On May 10 2013 23:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2013 15:26 LuckyFool wrote:
Is a gun ban to improve the suicide rate even the right way to try and improve the suicide rate.
I view gun bans like sweeping dust under the rug- it might make things look better but you haven't really resolved the root cause of the issues. There's hundreds of millions of firearms floating around in this country, banning them won't make them all go away. Bad guys and guys who really want them will still find ways. Drugs are illegal in most states and a hell of alot of users carry on. I don't view guns much different, and unlike a random crackhead who illegally pots it up next door, now there's a criminal next door who could be a threat because the only real way to defend myself from him is illegal.
Suicide rates by guns would go down, mass shootings would probably go down, but can anyone really predict what new problems could arise if guns were banned and if we would actually be any better off really. 3 mass shootings a year avoided at the cost of 3,000 additional home invasions per year? Who knows.
I have pretty libertarian views on gun control in general. The reason gun control is such a hot topic is it's one of the few tangible things a citizen has a right to that they can use to defend themselves against even unthinkable things like an oppressive government. It might not happen in our lifetimes or even in 3 or 4 generations from now but I feel that removing guns is the first step down a path of a potential monopoly where only one side has all the power, that has rarely done good things in the past and throughout history. Today we could be banning assault rifles, tomorrow it's all the rest of the firearms and who knows where it stops from there...Guns are different than most other things for those reasons I think and which is why people care about this so much.
It's really quite a heavy decision that lots of people don't really think through fully I feel. We can't even know exactly what it would do, either in the short term or the long. Or if it would really even help. Take Chicago for example, one of the harder areas of the country to buy a gun and yet their gun crime is among the highest in the nation. First off, guns don't have an infinitely long street life; introduce strict gun bans, confiscate guns, etc. and you can severely reduce the number of guns in the country within a decade. That said, only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply have some common-sense regulation on guns like we have on cars and alcohol. Things like background checks and a gun registry so you can trace guns used in a crime. Make people more responsible if their guns are used in a crime. Force people to actually take firearms safety courses if they intend to buy a gun. Things like this. It would have no effect on law-abiding citizens, as they could still get a gun if they wanted to, it would just be slightly less convenient. Yet, that's the sad part; groups like the NRA don't like these measures because, apparently, their convenience is more important than others' lives. And don't bring up that nonsense about privacy in background checks or confiscation of guns. I have had a background check done on me for all kinds of jobs, so you can deal with it if you want to own an incredibly deadly tool, and a worry about mass confiscation is simply fear-mongering and has nothing to do with an actual gun registry that could track firearms to their owner or point of purchase. And only the most hardcore conservatives think there shouldn't be any bans on guns. the NRA only has its teeth because the democratic party keeps making a fool of itself and says things just like this. You think Confiscating guns, "strict gun bans" , a national gun registry are exactly the things that the NRA feeds off of. They literally package how passive liberals are about taking away the guns and then pass that onto their members to get into a hissy about it. Then you have the fucking balls to go on and critizise the NRA for "not likeing these measures for being less convenient" when you LITERALY JUST went over the exact steps of how to take away peoples guns. You complain about how background checks are nothing when you LITEARLY JUST went over how it would be used to take away peoples guns. This is exactly the problem why we can have "reasonable gun control" in america, when we have people like you advocating unreasonable gun control. You are advocating for guns to be banned and by your own admission you are a hardcore liberal. You attacked your own credibility at the beginning of the post and then spent the whole post showing why you are apart of that discredited bunch. It sounds like you read a third of my post and then just felt like bitching so you filled the rest in with your imagination. I didn't go through the steps on how to take away peoples guns. You literally pulled that out of your ass. In fact, I said, as I have said in this thread multiple times, that a gun registry has nothing to do with taking away people guns. These are completely separate bills and completely separate consequences. Unless you can show me that a gun registry will somehow set a legal precedent to make it more likely that gun confiscation will be enacted, you are making shit up.Every car that can be legally driven on the road can be traced to its owner. Does that mean that the government is going to suddenly confiscate our cars? Nope. It allows them to trace cars for criminal or other scenarios. The government takes the census every 10 years. Does this mean that they suddenly have a legal precedent to just track down people they don't like and black-bag them? Nope. This is fear-mongering at its finest; a simple list does not set any kind of precedent that is going to allow the government to do something that is completely unrelated. Also, background checks in no way contribute to confiscating guns. That is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard in the gun debate. The only unreasonable person here is you, and it's because you're doing the exact thing hardcore conservatives do; you make up strawmen and then fear-monger based off of your imaginary opponents. Grow up.
Australia and norway isn't enough for you to have precedent for a national gun registry being used for a massive gun grab?
introduce strict gun bans, confiscate guns, etc. and you can severely reduce the number of guns in the country within a decade.
From the very start of your post you go though the steps to take away peoples guns within a decade.
Just because you say something with italics, underlined, and bolded doesn't make it any less of a lie if you tell it to yourself or other people.
If you're really trying to compare guns with cars you have no reason to be in this debate at all. Background checks in itself doesn't contribute to confiscating guns. But because you are too partisan to understand how background checks work, pointing to your 90% statistic and assuming the intellectual high ground, you utterly ignore that its not the background checks themselves but the system that the background checks use. You utterly miss the point that there is no way to make an effective background check system without it being an ad hoc gun registry.
For fucks sake don't make fucking strawmans in the same breath as chastizeing the other side for making strawmans. Do you even read your own posts as you are making them?
|
On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks  On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went.
That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever.
Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man."
That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics.
As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
