Dark Lord Potter Forums Dark Lord Potter Forums  
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Donate to DLP PatronusCharm Banner

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2008, 10:21 PM   #41
Midknight
Alumni
Middy is SPAI!
 
Midknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,069
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Also Midknight, why do you so shamelessly quash Logrus' 1st ammendment rights? He's not hurting anyone. Since you think he's an idiot why not use reason to rebut his arguments and show him to be the moron you believe him to be. Maybe you can re-educate him and make him a productive member of society and our forums? To be honest you're coming off as a Nazi to his Jew on these boards from my pov.
OR,

You could do yourself a favor and look around, and see over a dozen examples of nearly everyone who comes in heres telling him to calm down the devil's advocacy shit, the flat out lies, the twisted spin doctored bullshit he keeps copying and pasting, and you know, that whole temp banning thing I did as a final warning.. then the next 3 warnings I gave as final warnings, before finally ignoring the next several trash posts, before finally, finally getting tired of it.

Yeah. I'm totally a nazi.

Politics is for something borderline on dicussion, not c/p drivel and ignoring when everyone on the damned website is telling you to knock it off and either form a real opinion or stfu.

Oh yeah, and there's the whole, he asked me to ban him from here thing because he couldn't keep his mouth shut on his own.

But yeah, I'm being a nazi. Kindly go back to lurking.





Now, as to the ban, the calibers are a bit much, and no, it's NOT just stuff you can attach a bayonet to, along with a few others, it's much more in depth then that.

Last edited by Midknight; 11-21-2008 at 10:27 PM.
Midknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 03:14 AM   #42
Rayndeon
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immolo View Post
NO ONE FUCKING NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE! THE ARMY IS TOO STRONG FOR A BUNCH OF HAY FARMERS WITH ASSAULT RIFLES TO DO SHIT!

The only reason those retards in Iraq stand a chance is the US army isn't allowed to slaughter people willy nilly. If our country suddenly became a dictatorship there would be no such laws on our army.

Only psychopaths, the police and the army need assault rifles. Here is a hint assault rifles mean automatic weapons. Automatic weapons present far more danger to the average person than non automatic weapons.
The Ban defined "assault weapon" by the non-functioning, and otherwise entirely useful, parts of a gun, not as necessarily a fully automatic weapon. Some of the inclusions are mind-numbingly idiotic. For instance, it was banned to own any detachable magazines for a handgun or semiautomatic rifle with a capacity more than 10 rounds. "Assault weapons" applied to rifles with a shoulder stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel, etc; as for handguns, you couldn't have a threaded barrel, it couldn't have more than 10-rds in it, it couldn't weigh more than about 1.5 kg unloaded, etc, i.e. non-functioning components of a gun. (On that note, whose bright idea was it to ban 10+-round mags and threaded barrels, I wonder?)

Let us not forget that there is every indication that the Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on mitigating gun violence. 2nd amendment issues or not, if we keep the discussion to the fairly concrete matter of "Did this bill help reduce gun violence?", the answer is a resounding "No!" For starters, not even traditional "assault weapons" (i.e. rifles, semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, fully automatic rifles, carbines, submachine guns, etc) are used that often when it comes to most gun violence in the first place. That's even before one notes that even banning handguns across the board, as in the previous D.C. ban, has little to no effect in mitigating gun violence.

Frankly, any considerations as to what guns are going to be allowed or are not should likely be confined at best to a state level.

Last edited by Rayndeon; 11-22-2008 at 03:18 AM.
Rayndeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 03:04 PM   #43
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603
Honestly, no one is going to pay 1500$ for an assault rifle, wait a week for a background check, just to go on a spree.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 03:48 PM   #44
Midknight
Alumni
Middy is SPAI!
 
Midknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,069
DLP Supporter Donor Star
? I would.
Midknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 04:10 PM   #45
World
Oberstgruppenführer
 
World's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Axis of Evil (Original)
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,161
DLP Supporter Donor Star
If I were to go on a killing spree, I sure as hell wouldn't do it with a shitty pistol, that's for sure.
__________________
World is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 04:13 PM   #46
Aekiel
Unspeakable
Angle of Mispeling
 
Aekiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mouth of Ports
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 733
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 9,373
Killing spree? I'd use a sniper rifle, much less chance of you being caught, and if you get a silencer to go with it you could conceivably kill several people in broad daylight before anyone noticed. You'd just have to hit them in places where the blood would not be too noticeable, or just shoot fat guys.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Custer
We're holding out for more SasuNaru goodness.
Because you can't, you won't and you don't stop ~ The Beastie Muppets
Steam Profile
Aekiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 04:15 PM   #47
Rayndeon
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by World View Post
If I were to go on a killing spree, I sure as hell wouldn't do it with a shitty pistol, that's for sure.
Most criminals who go on things like killing sprees do. Even those who get an assault rifle or carbine or submachine gun rarely get them legally. Let us not forget that the worst mass shooting in U.S. history by Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech was done using only a Walther P22 and Glock 19.
Rayndeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 07:33 PM   #48
Midknight
Alumni
Middy is SPAI!
 
Midknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,069
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Killing spree? I'd use a sniper rifle, much less chance of you being caught, and if you get a silencer to go with it you could conceivably kill several people in broad daylight before anyone noticed. You'd just have to hit them in places where the blood would not be too noticeable, or just shoot fat guys.
Sniper rifle isn't easy to aim, hard as fuck to conceal, even with a "silencer" on a sniper rifle it's still noticeable unless you've hollowed out a trunk of a car, and layer the thing with towels, and even then, you're going to kill what, 2 people per set up? A high rise building perch will let you get a dozen or so if you go all around the building, but then, you have to be a great shot. Not to mention though, a sniper bullet isn't conducive to small, non noticeable holes. If you're going to go serial killer, you want the shots that go through manhole covers for shock and terror value.

If I was to go on a killing spree, it'd be multiple powerful handguns, or 2 assault weapons in case the first jams, single shot per trigger press for aiming, silenced (btw, that's one of the main uses for a threaded barrel, or flash suppressors) and with laser sights, a bullet proof vest with a ballistics protection helmet, and a police scanner.

The VT killer was the smartest, as much as I hate to say something like that. Plenty of ammo, chain the doors, have at it. Something like an Outback at mother's day, or a crowded office building on an elevated story 3+ to keep folks from going out the windows would of easily outscored that guy using just a handgun with good planning.

I don't support removing the high caliber, super powerful, assault shit just because I think everyone who fixates on those guns are nut balls. I just feel there's no need for someone to have that shit other then the cops, and the military, including the National Guard. Handguns will almost always be the highest guns used in crimes, they're the easiest to conceal, easiest to get, easiest to operate.

But lets be honest, if they cracked down on handguns all you knuckleheads crying because the gov doesn't want you to own a silenced sniper rifle, or a m-16 with grenade launcher attachment, or a semi auto that's been threaded for attachments, or armor piercing rounds (which you cannot, cannot justify public having that for shit) would go apeshit.
Midknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 07:58 PM   #49
Aekiel
Unspeakable
Angle of Mispeling
 
Aekiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mouth of Ports
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 733
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 9,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midknight View Post
Sniper rifle isn't easy to aim, hard as fuck to conceal, even with a "silencer" on a sniper rifle it's still noticeable unless you've hollowed out a trunk of a car, and layer the thing with towels, and even then, you're going to kill what, 2 people per set up? A high rise building perch will let you get a dozen or so if you go all around the building, but then, you have to be a great shot. Not to mention though, a sniper bullet isn't conducive to small, non noticeable holes. If you're going to go serial killer, you want the shots that go through manhole covers for shock and terror value.

If I was to go on a killing spree, it'd be multiple powerful handguns, or 2 assault weapons in case the first jams, single shot per trigger press for aiming, silenced (btw, that's one of the main uses for a threaded barrel, or flash suppressors) and with laser sights, a bullet proof vest with a ballistics protection helmet, and a police scanner.
Fair point, though you can't understate the value of shock and terror. Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way. Use a sniper rifle with AP rounds (Barrett m82?) to make sure that a hit on any part of the body is a devastating one. Kill maybe two per shooting but have multiple shootings over a given time period. Randomise the areas, though try to hit high traffic ones, and try to hit areas that would maximise the terrorism aspect like shopping streets and tourist sites.

You have more chance of escaping with your life intact if you go about it this way than the traditional one I think... I guess I would go for the more cerebral enjoyment of terrifying people than just the act of killing >_>.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Custer
We're holding out for more SasuNaru goodness.
Because you can't, you won't and you don't stop ~ The Beastie Muppets
Steam Profile
Aekiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 08:11 PM   #50
Midknight
Alumni
Middy is SPAI!
 
Midknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,069
DLP Supporter Donor Star
I still personally think the DC sniper shit was "helped" along by someone, to take our minds off the wars we had going on. I don't think they'd of ever caught the guy otherwise, if whoever was controlling the older guy hadn't turned on him. he was just too good, just too careful to be caught the way he was.

Planning and shock value of randomly picked targets is what made those guys so terrifying.
Midknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 08:32 PM   #51
Banta
The Chosen One
 
Banta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oregon
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,063
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midknight View Post
Sniper rifle isn't easy to aim, hard as fuck to conceal, even with a "silencer" on a sniper rifle it's still noticeable unless you've hollowed out a trunk of a car, and layer the thing with towels, and even then, you're going to kill what, 2 people per set up? A high rise building perch will let you get a dozen or so if you go all around the building, but then, you have to be a great shot. Not to mention though, a sniper bullet isn't conducive to small, non noticeable holes. If you're going to go serial killer, you want the shots that go through manhole covers for shock and terror value.
True, but another big problem with high-caliber sniping is just how much noise the damn round makes. Go with a .22 hunting rifle w/ scope instead; much less noise, virtually no kick, and a .22 in the head will drop someone pretty damn quickly.

Quote:
If I was to go on a killing spree, it'd be multiple powerful handguns, or 2 assault weapons in case the first jams, single shot per trigger press for aiming, silenced (btw, that's one of the main uses for a threaded barrel, or flash suppressors) and with laser sights, a bullet proof vest with a ballistics protection helmet, and a police scanner.
I'd go with the above mentioned .22, a pair of 9mm GLOCK's, a 9mm UZI or an FN P90, if I can get my hands on it, and maybe a .357 Desert Eagle.

On the topic, I really don 't get people who whine about the government taking away their assault rifles and whatnot; you can kill a man with perfectly legal weapons, only reason to have anything else is for either overcompensation or being an idiot.
Banta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 08:57 PM   #52
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
On the topic, I really don 't get people who whine about the government taking away their assault rifles and whatnot; you can kill a man with perfectly legal weapons, only reason to have anything else is for either overcompensation or being an idiot.
1) It's against FEDERAL LAW. It's against the motherfucking Constitution. That's why it matters. It holds the same value as Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, you DON'T let them gain ground on restricting any of the rights without causing a serious shitfight.

2) So what? No one's worried about how easy it is to kill people. If that was the only qualification I'd say ban everything but machetes.

3) It was put in there for a multitude of reasons, one of which was in case militias ever had to be raised so the .gov didn't have to outfit people with costly weapons.

4) One of the other reasons it was put in there was in case of either the military getting out of line, or the government. They didn't want the people to be second-class when it comes to the government, and damnit, I don't want to be.

In short, fuck you.

Quote:
If I were to go on a killing spree, I sure as hell wouldn't do it with a shitty pistol, that's for sure.
Ironically, the High Score for school shootings was set by the kid at V-Tech using two pistols.

Quote:
I don't support removing the high caliber, super powerful, assault shit just because I think everyone who fixates on those guns are nut balls. I just feel there's no need for someone to have that shit other then the cops, and the military, including the National Guard.
I don't need a Lot of crap. I don't need a water pump or shit like that, it doesn't mean I never will, just that I don't at this minute. Need isn't a proper qualification when it comes to banning stuff, especially when the constitution specifically forbids the government from banning it.

Quote:
Handguns will almost always be the highest guns used in crimes, they're the easiest to conceal, easiest to get, easiest to operate.

But lets be honest, if they cracked down on handguns all you knuckleheads crying because the gov doesn't want you to own a silenced sniper rifle, or a m-16 with grenade launcher attachment, or a semi auto that's been threaded for attachments, or armor piercing rounds (which you cannot, cannot justify public having that for shit) would go apeshit.
I don't think you even understand the pro-gun argument. Of course we'd go ape shit, we're worried about the government abiding by their own Terms of Operation for fucks sake. Part of that includes not banning hand guns. You give the government a foot of rope and they Will hang your ass with it.

And I don't need to justify AP rounds just like I don't need to justify buckshot or the cylindrical bullet.

I find it funny as shit all the people here crying about how guns serve no purpose and should be banned are the same motherfuckers who'd be crying their little ass off if it came out that the NY Times or CNN were being threatened by the government... saying don't publish this, don't publish that.

The same people that would be outraged if the US Marines kicked in their door and said "We get your house for the night, get out." The same people that would be outraged if a cop slammed you into the pavement for holding up a sign at a political rally.

The fact is, if you don't protest when they take one right, they Will take them all. And I'll be blaming you as I load my AK for being a traitor to your own people, your country, and a coward. All because you were too chickenshit to fathom the idea that you might be able to use something scary.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 04:28 AM   #53
Banta
The Chosen One
 
Banta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oregon
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,063
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiph0 View Post
1) It's against FEDERAL LAW. It's against the motherfucking Constitution. That's why it matters. It holds the same value as Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, you DON'T let them gain ground on restricting any of the rights without causing a serious shitfight.

2) So what? No one's worried about how easy it is to kill people. If that was the only qualification I'd say ban everything but machetes.
I get your point, but people don't need assault rifles OR AP rounds unless they are planning to kill humans.

Also, you can kill someone with a machete. Fuck, just about anything is a potential weapon of death, it just depends on how creative you are.

Quote:
3) It was put in there for a multitude of reasons, one of which was in case militias ever had to be raised so the .gov didn't have to outfit people with costly weapons.

4) One of the other reasons it was put in there was in case of either the military getting out of line, or the government. They didn't want the people to be second-class when it comes to the government, and damnit, I don't want to be.
First off, you obviously don't know enough about firearms if you think that assault rifles or other military grade weapons are necessary for an insurgency, which is what would probably happen if part of the US ever revolted, in order to effectively fight the military.

Second, another really obvious reason, that no one seems to bring up when talking about this, as to why the founding fathers created 'right to bear arms' was the fact that a good portion of the country was frontier; firearms were absolutely necessary in order to defend your home.

Also, just in case no else knew this, the Bill of Rights was created solely to trump the anti-Federalists and to sway people into ratifying the Constitution in the first place. The Bill of Rights, by nature, is a bad idea because it gives a list for those in Government on what they can't do, which allows them to know what they can do; if it's not in the Constitution, you can do it (wire-tapping anyone?).

Just kinda throwing that out there.

Quote:
Ironically, the High Score for school shootings was set by the kid at V-Tech using two pistols.
Best school shooter, but not best spree killer.
http://www.spreekillers.org/
Banta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 05:01 AM   #54
Krogan
Third Year
Alien in a Hat
 
Krogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 108
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiph0 View Post
1)
I don't need a Lot of crap. I don't need a water pump or shit like that, it doesn't mean I never will, just that I don't at this minute. Need isn't a proper qualification when it comes to banning stuff, especially when the constitution specifically forbids the government from banning it.



I don't think you even understand the pro-gun argument. Of course we'd go ape shit, we're worried about the government abiding by their own Terms of Operation for fucks sake. Part of that includes not banning hand guns. You give the government a foot of rope and they Will hang your ass with it.

And I don't need to justify AP rounds just like I don't need to justify buckshot or the cylindrical bullet.
^This QFT, Xipho is absolutely right about that. Not needing something is no damned basis for banning it for good.

Second Middy when your talking about sniper rifles not being easy to aim well that really isn't all that true, it depends a lot on training and even inate talent. A sniper rifle isn't that hard to aim at all if you know the factors you have to consider when taking a long range shot. Also the newest sniper rifles are great for shock and horror value even if you clip them in the arm or leg the sheer force of the bullet is enough to tear limbs clean off. If thats not shock value when going for a single shooting murder I don't know what the fuck is.
__________________
Krogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 05:15 AM   #55
Chaotic Harmony
Third Year
 
Chaotic Harmony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Rift
Posts: 87
My Two Cents: No average person (Aka. Non-Military, Non-Law Enforcement, and so on) Needs any type of fully automatic firearm or high caliber armor piercing weapon.

Do you need a 50.Cal to take down a deer? I hope not…

In truth, for self defense no one needs anything over a .22 Caliber. The point of owning a gun for self defense is that it acts as a deterrent until the proper authorities can arrive. Not as a means to blow off your attackers head and limbs.

Edit: On the Topic of machetes, wasn't this the weapon of choice during the Huti Tutsi Conflict in Rwanda?

Last edited by Chaotic Harmony; 11-23-2008 at 05:21 AM. Reason: Edited for the Machetes
Chaotic Harmony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 05:54 AM   #56
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenhauser View Post
I get your point, but people don't need assault rifles OR AP rounds unless they are planning to kill humans.
So we're pre-empting thoughtcrime now? Okay. What if I am? I do it, they give me the death penalty. I know that.

Quote:
First off, you obviously don't know enough about firearms if you think that assault rifles or other military grade weapons are necessary for an insurgency, which is what would probably happen if part of the US ever revolted, in order to effectively fight the military.
First off, I own firearms, lots of them. I know you can carry out insurgencies without assault rifles. It doesn't make it right to ban them, just that I have a fall-back if they do short of buying illegal guns. In fact, I also know trainees in any insurgency are less likely to waste ammo with guns that aren't automat. It doesn't make them less useful for it.

Aside from that, what if I just want to shoot one for FUN? Shooting AK's is one of the most terrify but fun things I've ever done in my life. I'd love to continue without the Million Mom crowd talking about how I support killing children.

Second, another really obvious reason, that no one seems to bring up when talking about this, as to why the founding fathers created 'right to bear arms' was the fact that a good portion of the country was frontier; firearms were absolutely necessary in order to defend your home.

Quote:
Also, just in case no else knew this, the Bill of Rights was created solely to trump the anti-Federalists and to sway people into ratifying the Constitution in the first place.
The Federalists argued against the Bill of Rights, not for it, numbnuts.

Quote:
The Bill of Rights, by nature, is a bad idea because it gives a list for those in Government on what they can't do
I'd say that by nature makes it a damn good idea.

Quote:
My Two Cents: No average person (Aka. Non-Military, Non-Law Enforcement, and so on) Needs any type of fully automatic firearm or high caliber armor piercing weapon.
Pull your head out of your ass and learn to dissasociate between necessity and banning.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 07:32 AM   #57
Chengar Qordath
Professor
The Final Pony
 
Chengar Qordath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 442
High Score: 1,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenhauser View Post
The Bill of Rights, by nature, is a bad idea because it gives a list for those in Government on what they can't do, which allows them to know what they can do; if it's not in the Constitution, you can do it (wire-tapping anyone?).
You might want to read the 9th Amendment again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As to the rest, fully agreed with Xiph0; rights don't have to have an need proven in order to be exercised. Imagine having to prove that you needed your right to freedom of religion or protection from search and seizure. The burden of proof (and it is substantial for a right enumerated in the Constitution) is on the government to prove that it has a compelling interest that requires restricting said right.

In other words, the right question is not "Why do the people need guns?" but rather "Why does the government need to take away the people's guns?"
__________________
@Patreon: Link
Chengar Qordath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 01:57 PM   #58
Rayndeon
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 459
The issue of "assault rifles/carbines/submachine guns" aside...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaotic Harmony View Post
In truth, for self defense no one needs anything over a .22 Caliber. The point of owning a gun for self defense is that it acts as a deterrent until the proper authorities can arrive. Not as a means to blow off your attackers head and limbs.
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding if you honestly think that .22 Cal is all one needs for self-defense. Frankly, most CCW holders wouldn't recommend anything under 9mm. A .22 just doesn't have the stopping power you need and, IMO, .40 S&W, 10mm Auto, or .45 ACP are the way to go for CCW.

Frankly, perhaps the reason people are so wary of allowing "assault rifles/submachine guns/carbines" is because they feel that it would only allow for increased levels of crime. There is no indication that it does, especially after the statistics after the 10-year "assault weapons" ban had little to no effect on crime, moreover that most gun violence occurs with a handgun, not a rifle, carbine, or submachine gun. But, not even banning handguns helped much, as we found out after the end of the D.C. ban.

Last edited by Rayndeon; 11-23-2008 at 02:04 PM.
Rayndeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 02:04 PM   #59
Midknight
Alumni
Middy is SPAI!
 
Midknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,069
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krogan View Post
Second Middy when your talking about sniper rifles not being easy to aim well that really isn't all that true, it depends a lot on training and even inate talent. A sniper rifle isn't that hard to aim at all if you know the factors you have to consider when taking a long range shot. Also the newest sniper rifles are great for shock and horror value even if you clip them in the arm or leg the sheer force of the bullet is enough to tear limbs clean off. If thats not shock value when going for a single shooting murder I don't know what the fuck is.

So you mean to tell me that as we were discussing, sitting far away so you'd have no chance of being discovered, your average person can rack up kills left and right using a sniper rifle they've had little training on? I was at Fort Bragg firing the old m1c sniper rifle when I was trying to be talked into going military by my uncle. It ain't that easy to aim and hit a target over 400 feet away as you make it sound.

Xiph you're so rabid about your guns it's amusing to argue with you. I'll always disagree with you about that. But the 2nd amendment does NOT say the populace is allowed to have any sort of weapon they want with no regulations. It says a well regulated milita.

Quote:
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.
It doesnt say because you're a paranoid fuck you should be allowed a fully automatic silenced, underslung grenade launchers with laser sights and all the AP rounds you want. It was written in, because they were going to have to have a well armed populace to protect themselves against a guarenteeded British threat for the next long while.

Quote:
Second, another really obvious reason, that no one seems to bring up when talking about this, as to why the founding fathers created 'right to bear arms' was the fact that a good portion of the country was frontier; firearms were absolutely necessary in order to defend your home.
Yeah, and we all have to be armed now to our teeth with Aks and M-16's to protect ourselves from those fucking buffaloe, those scary Indians and their blackjack tables, and the constant threat of mountain lion. It was applicable as shit back then. Not now. And i agree with you about shooting fully auto weapons, it is fun. But you shouldn't fucking have one at home. Let shooting ranges keep them or rent their use.

To be totally honest I do support arming nearly everyone in the fucking country with handguns and teaching them control, and safety. We will face some serious shit I think in the next hundred years. China's out of control, they can hack out intelligence agencies with NO fucking repercussions, between them and Russia they both do basically whatever the fuck they want, India doesn't like us a whole lot, etc. We've got a lot of folks who don't like us for being the bigger kid on the block for a while and fucking everyone over. Our country has earned an assraping, and we need to be better prepared at a governmental level.

Edit: For that matter, your average hunting rifle scoped would do just as well of a job. If we were to get invaded, you wouldn't be doing full on assaults like.. oh.. assault weapons are made for, you'd be doing Red Dawn type shit with hunting rifles, stealth shit with handguns for your roving scout. Not taking the "OMFG!1! thank god they didn't get the ban passed on this m-16 with a bayonet, I just gutted an evil Russkie!1!" assault weapon.

Does that mean your average person needs assault weapons? Fuck no. Train them in handguns, fine. Crime would spike shortly, but then it'd drop way off as no criminal is going to go into a home for the fuck of it knowing damned well there's a gun there waiting to be used. Keep the assault weapons in the National Guard to be doled out if we get attacked.

Banning AP rounds does not equal a fucking police state. Being against certain whackjobs having the shit does not equal being traitors to this country or our rights. I know people who've lost loved ones who were cops when they went into drug houses on raids, and got mowed down by some asshole with a weapon the public shouldn't fucking have, that went through the cops like butter. I know folks who'ved died on a normal traffic stop because the guy was speeding, with a weapon in the car and got nervous and took the cop out. I just don't think if you have that shit in the first place you can be trusted to use it in a calm manner for... say 40% of the people who want that crap. Go ahead and bitch and, we're never going to agree on it.

God forbid, making it even a hair harder to get guns, like the waiting period, set you fucking people insane. If being forced to wait 7 days before you can purchase your dozenth gun drives you fucking insane, all you do is prove the rest of the anti-gun folks right about your sanity.

Last edited by Midknight; 11-23-2008 at 02:08 PM.
Midknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 02:25 PM   #60
Krogan
Third Year
Alien in a Hat
 
Krogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 108
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midknight View Post
So you mean to tell me that as we were discussing, sitting far away so you'd have no chance of being discovered, your average person can rack up kills left and right using a sniper rifle they've had little training on? I was at Fort Bragg firing the old m1c sniper rifle when I was trying to be talked into going military by my uncle. It ain't that easy to aim and hit a target over 400 feet away as you make it sound.
No your absolutely right but I thought I was fairly clear when I said its a training thing, if your trained then it really isnt terribly difficult from an average distance of say 500 to 600 feet but your right, any asshole off the street couldn't just pick up a sniper rifle and start capping people from a mile off. I freely admit my viewpoint is a little skewed because I've had a hefty amount of training on how to properly make long distance shots.
__________________
Krogan is offline   Reply With Quote

Tags
sticky


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official NBA discussion thread. Havoc Real Life Discussion 19 11-09-2008 02:20 AM
Official MLB Discussion Thread 2008 Xiph0 Real Life Discussion 104 11-01-2008 01:20 AM
Official NFL Discussion Thread 2008 Voice of the Nephilim Real Life Discussion 3 09-14-2008 11:52 PM
The Mechanics of Spells discussion thread Kerrus General Discussion 36 02-22-2008 03:26 PM
Official GoF movie discussion thread! Midknight General Discussion 130 01-10-2006 04:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2005 - 2016 DLP Group. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.