*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #60 on: December 19, 2015, 01:21:29 AM »
Because we're talking about whether tightening or repealing that amendment would be a good thing or not.

It's like trying to close down the discussion about drug legalisation by saying "well it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else thinks drugs are good. We have a law banning them."

This isn't just any law, this is a part of a specific document that bequeaths what we consider modern rights to an entire country. Forgive me if I don't seriously entertain the thought of stripping rights from people.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2969
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #61 on: December 19, 2015, 09:27:53 AM »
I once got to try out my uncle's M4 variant rifle. It had a scope and a foregrip. I'm not going to lie, it felt really damn awesome just holding it. They must have spent a shit ton of money designing those, because it felt like an extension of my own arm.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #62 on: December 20, 2015, 06:06:52 PM »
"Assault" weapon/rifle is a term the left-wingers love to use.  It makes the rifles sound scarier.  Unless one has gone through the procedures and has the finances to get an actual class 3 'automatic' rifle, that person has a semi-auto rifle, which is just a cosmetic clone of the real military rifle that fires the same ammo.

Thork

Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #63 on: December 20, 2015, 09:44:34 PM »
Do you really need an assault weapon? I mean do you really need that much power? What about your own tank? Or an armed tactical fighter jet? An apache helicopter complete with hellfire missiles? Why not be able to buy a nuke?

At some point you need to be able to draw the line. I don't think anyone would consider it ok to allow a private citizen to buy a nuclear weapon just because they applied for a license to own and operate it. No one is trusted with that kind of power. So dial it back. How much power should be allowed? A rail gun? Should you be able to buy semtex? Is an RPG ok? A minigun? An assault rifle?

How much destructive power can you risk giving any sane and licensed person and hope that they never use it on other people? I'd argue a gun that can kill everything in a classroom in under 4 seconds is probably too much power.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2015, 10:53:50 PM »
Do you really need an assault weapon? I mean do you really need that much power? What about your own tank? Or an armed tactical fighter jet? An apache helicopter complete with hellfire missiles? Why not be able to buy a nuke?

At some point you need to be able to draw the line. I don't think anyone would consider it ok to allow a private citizen to buy a nuclear weapon just because they applied for a license to own and operate it. No one is trusted with that kind of power. So dial it back. How much power should be allowed? A rail gun? Should you be able to buy semtex? Is an RPG ok? A minigun? An assault rifle?

How much destructive power can you risk giving any sane and licensed person and hope that they never use it on other people? I'd argue a gun that can kill everything in a classroom in under 4 seconds is probably too much power.

All of the things you listed are legal to own privately. Due to the nature of the second amendment, any true "this weapon is illegal" law would be rendered unconstitutional, so all the US can do is hide weapons under red tape. A type 11 Federal Firearms License has no restrictions on what type of weapons you can own or import (however 'developing' or 'using' a nuclear weapon is illegal). Theoretically one could own a nuclear weapon. Kodak privately owned a nuclear reactor in their lab for many decades and it produced extremely small quantities of weaponized uranium as a byproduct. To skirt this, federal law refers to the "use" of a nuclear weapon being illegal, not the ownership. It's a pretty big gray area, but it'd generally be a bad idea to try to make one.

There are firing ranges across the midwest specifically built for tank and artillery owners to fire their weapons. Also, from what I remember, the dealer that supplies FPSRussia his weapons to show on YouTube was a type 9 FFL. Someone ended up murdering the guy in his house.



Fires the tank at ~1:40
« Last Edit: December 20, 2015, 10:59:26 PM by Rushy »

Thork

Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2015, 01:42:53 AM »
American's always have this thing about their constitution being like a religious text. It can't be challenged, anything in there is gospel, it's absolutely perfect and only straying from the constitution causes problems. There is of course a small chance anything written by man, especially hundreds of years ago contains a large amount of bollocks in it. Your constitution included.

The statistics don't lie. The more guns a nation has, the more likely people will shoot each other with them. So if you give them more powerful guns, they'll do more damage with them. Is the reward of putting a smile on a hillbilly's face when he blows up a melon in the dessert, worth horror on a mother's face when she discovers her child was shot dead by a guy with a mental illness whilst at school?

Just because you can have these things, doesn't mean its a good idea.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #66 on: December 21, 2015, 02:17:53 AM »
The police in the United States are constantly having to deal with supercriminals attacking cities with their tank and fighter jet forces.

*

Offline mikeman7918

  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Round Earther
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #67 on: December 21, 2015, 07:33:56 AM »
American's always have this thing about their constitution being like a religious text. It can't be challenged, anything in there is gospel, it's absolutely perfect and only straying from the constitution causes problems. There is of course a small chance anything written by man, especially hundreds of years ago contains a large amount of bollocks in it. Your constitution included.

But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms.  All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?  The constitution can indeed be amended but the vast majority of states must agree to change it and we know that such a thing is never going to happen, and and because the constitution still contains the second amendment any politician trying to take away guns is breaking the oath they swore when they were put into office which is basically treason.

The statistics don't lie. The more guns a nation has, the more likely people will shoot each other with them. So if you give them more powerful guns, they'll do more damage with them. Is the reward of putting a smile on a hillbilly's face when he blows up a melon in the dessert, worth horror on a mother's face when she discovers her child was shot dead by a guy with a mental illness whilst at school?

Just because you can have these things, doesn't mean its a good idea.

Indeed, statistics don't lie.  You should look up which states have the most crime and which states have the strictest gun control.  You will find that the two lists look remarkably similar.  The states that have high gun control like Callifornia drive up the national average.  I've been to California and let me tell you, I'd prefer being in my home state Utah with low gun control any day.  Just compare the crime rates of those states and you will see what I mean.

Internationally the correlation is much less noticeable simply because all nations are very different in many ways and crime rates are effected my more then the number of guns available.  If you want some examples: Mexico has strict gun control and high crime while Switzerland has very high gun ownership and very low crime.  Individual states make for a more accurite controlled comparison because that are more simelar.
If we are having a debate and you resort to using insults and ad hominem fallacies then I will consider that a win.  You have been warned.

Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #68 on: December 21, 2015, 08:06:26 AM »
You could buy a tank or a jet, but good fucking luck getting the insane chain of maintenance that vehicles like that require.

Thork

Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #69 on: December 21, 2015, 12:50:16 PM »
But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms.  All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?
They already removed your right to free speech. You say something homophobic, or racist, or anything that the liberal left disapproves of and they will arrest you on crimes of 'hate speech' and allow vigilante justice to prevail as your job and future income is forcibly removed.
They also made you a slave. When you were born, you were issued with a birth certificate. If you were the child of a multi-millionaire your birth certificate went to the Federal Reserve and was placed in the pile for 'preferred stock'. If you are anyone else your were packaged as 'common stock'. Your birth certificate (which reads like a shipping document) was then sold by the federal reserve to the highest bidder as 'bonds'. The clue is in the name. Your future labour will pay back those bonds as interest for the rest of your life via income tax ... in other words someone out there has a stake in your future income and gets that money! If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. If you were ever to get your own birth certificate back, you'd see a list of banks on the back, all of which who had OWNED you before selling you on to the next.

Bit about both certificates starts at 2:30 but the entire video is interesting and I picked this video as it is a good explanation.

So now you know nothing in your constitution means anything anyway, can we move on from "But its my constitutional right to bear arms", please?


Saddam Hussein

Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2015, 01:39:01 PM »
Oh no, not that redemption/strawman/sovereign citizen/freeman on the land bullshit.  From a financial, legal, historical, or logical viewpoint, none of it makes any sense whatsoever.

I don't know what else to say about this.  It's so detached from reality, so completely nuts, that I'm not even sure where to begin in tearing it down.  Bonds aren't sold to the highest bidder, for one thing.  Anyone can buy bonds, and anyone who has can confirm that they have absolutely nothing to do with birth certificates, and that they aren't paid anyone's income taxes as interest.  How would that even work for immigrants, anyway?  They have to pay income tax too, but the government couldn't be claiming the birth certificates of people being born in different countries.  And what about all the people who don't pay federal income taxes?

Also, hate speech isn't a crime in America.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #71 on: December 22, 2015, 06:29:58 AM »
Indeed, statistics don't lie.  ... crime rates are effected my[sic] more then the number of guns available. 

You realize how you are completely defeating your own point?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline mikeman7918

  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Round Earther
    • View Profile
Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?
« Reply #72 on: December 22, 2015, 05:03:29 PM »
But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms.  All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?
They already removed your right to free speech. You say something homophobic, or racist, or anything that the liberal left disapproves of and they will arrest you on crimes of 'hate speech' and allow vigilante justice to prevail as your job and future income is forcibly removed.
They also made you a slave. When you were born, you were issued with a birth certificate. If you were the child of a multi-millionaire your birth certificate went to the Federal Reserve and was placed in the pile for 'preferred stock'. If you are anyone else your were packaged as 'common stock'. Your birth certificate (which reads like a shipping document) was then sold by the federal reserve to the highest bidder as 'bonds'. The clue is in the name. Your future labour will pay back those bonds as interest for the rest of your life via income tax ... in other words someone out there has a stake in your future income and gets that money! If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. If you were ever to get your own birth certificate back, you'd see a list of banks on the back, all of which who had OWNED you before selling you on to the next.

Bit about both certificates starts at 2:30 but the entire video is interesting and I picked this video as it is a good explanation.

So now you know nothing in your constitution means anything anyway, can we move on from "But its my constitutional right to bear arms", please?

And do you agree with our constitutional rights being violated?  The constitution is there to protect the people from the government and it's the supreme law of the land that even the givernment is under.  There are systems in place to change it if the need arises and if the vast majority of people agree that the change is needed.  I know that the constitution was written by mistake making human beings, but if we are OK with the government defying the constitution then we revoke the rights it guarantees us and opens the doors for a dictatorship, monarchy, socialism, and stuff like that.  If the government has too much power then power is taken away from the people and it ceases to become a democracy.  I know you don't agree with the second amendment, but do you see why the constitution must be upheld?
If we are having a debate and you resort to using insults and ad hominem fallacies then I will consider that a win.  You have been warned.