(06-11-2013, 03:39 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2013, 12:14 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2013, 12:08 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Things can change just look at Australia as a prime example of how things can change.
Weren't Australians forced to surrender their guns?
Australians never had a constitutional right to bear arms.
Only assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons with more than a 10 round capacity. Technically you can still have most of them if you have a category D licence (Collector/Dealer).
Most people over the age of 18 can obtain a legal firearm, it's just a fairly complicated process now to obtain a gun licence, and then a permit to acquire.
They pushed for gun laws after this faggot went apeshit in his community.
![[Image: r133678_448293.jpg]](http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/r133678_448293.jpg)
"The Port Arthur Massacre"
Classification: Spree killer
Characteristics: Revenge
Number of victims: 35
Date of murders: April 28, 1996
Date of arrest: Same day
Date of birth: May 7, 1967
Victims profile: Winifred Joyce Aplin (58) / Walter John Bennett (66) / Nicole Louise Burgess (17) / Sou Leng Chung (32) / Elva Rhonda Gaylard (48) / Zoe Anne Hall (28) / Elizabeth Jayne Howard (26) / Mary Elizabeth Howard (57) / Mervyn John Howard (55) / Ronald Noel Jary (71) / Tony Vadivelu Kistan (51) / Leslie Dennis Lever (53) / Sarah Kate Loughton (15) / David Martin (72) / Noelene Joyce Martin (69) / Pauline Virjeana Masters (49) / Alannah Louise Mikac (6) / Madeline Grace Mikac (3) / Nanette Patricia Mikac (36) / Andrew Bruce Mills (49) / Peter Brenton Nash (32) / Gwenda Joan Neander (67) / Moh Yee Willing Ng (48) / Anthony Nightingale (44) / Mary Rose Nixon (60) / Glen Roy Pears (35) / Russell James Pollard (72) / Janette Kathleen Quin (50) / Helene Maria Salzmann (50) / Robert Graham Salzmann (58) / Kate Elizabeth Scott (21) / Kevin Vincent Sharp (68) / Raymond John Sharp (67) / Royce William Thompson (59) / Jason Bernard Winter (29)
Method of murder: Shooting
Location: Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia
Status: Sentenced to 35 life sentences without possibility of parole on November 22, 1996
V below 2x links V
Port Arthur Massacre[Australia]
Martin Bryant.
(06-11-2013, 07:45 PM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ]Thorough Background checks are a must, no short cuts, deviations of laws, no politics, no exceptions. However, background checks are only the beginning. Types of weapons is paramount. IMHO.
IMHO. Military mass assault type weapons are used in Military "warfare", so as to make one solider be able to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Logical rational.
The second amendment allows "civilians" to own weapons, if they were: six shot handgun, bolt action rifle, shotgun, no problem. The problem comes when "civilians" want and get mass assault weapons.
Many won't like this, but even a 9 mm with a15 up to 30 shot magazine could be considered a mass assault weapon.
Because there never is a time that comes when the killing of as many civilians is required, is there?
When a nut job gets/has a mass assault weapon, the consequence turns into a Batman movie massacre & or Newtown massacre. (Recient) (Unfortunately, there are many nut jobs out there, so don't make assult weapons easily available)
And there [bold underlined portion of your post] is the biggest problem cars. Gun owners know that once we give in there is no telling what will be next. Its the old give them a inch and they will take a mile. So because of that gun enthusiasts resist every law change, gun ban, background check that is proposed.
Look at it from our eyes. In the 30's we gave up full auto firearms like the tommy gun. Then in the late 60's guns we required to have a serial number and dealers are required to keep paperwork on every firearm sold.. Then in the late 80's the Brady bunch rammed the N.I.C.S system down our throat. Theeeen in the early 90's we choked on the "assault" weapons ban. It was just on big game of give and take. We gave and the gun grabbers took. None of the new rules did any good, but it did make the gun grabbers feel good. There are still full auto firearms on the market [Now full auto can be owned but only if the government gets their cash kickback, I mean tax stamp money. ] You can bypass the serial number law by simply building your own firearm and it is perfectly legal. The feds don't bother prosecuting those who violate the background check laws. And that "assault" weapons ban, well that did nothing to curb the number of semi auto rifles or their hi capacity magazines, in fact it was proven to be so useless that it was not reinstated and has ben shot down whenever it gets brought up.
I feel EVERY firearm law currently on the books should be stricken from the records and then and only then could we sit down and come up with a set of rules that might just work.
As far as the modern sporting rifles that every gun grabber loves to refer to as a "assault" weapon goes. As a competition shooter I do have a use for firearms that hold 15-30 rounds of ammo. As in many things in life, bigger is better and more is faster.
Lets look at this subject as if it was a auto discussion. Just because the speed limits are 65-70 mph and when those limits are exceeded there is a higher chance of fatality if a accident happens [plus many innocent people are at greater risk] should we ban or restrict all the cars that can exceed 70 mph? I don't think so myself. Just because the car has a larger engine and can do 140 mph does not mean that the operator will do it. Yes there will always be those people that will break the law and endanger those around them, but that does not mean that everyone that drives should be punished. Some people just like those fast cars because of their looks and would never risk breaking the law. Others, well they would break the law and risk others lives if they owned a Yugo.
Again with the car/gun completely bullshit strawman argument.
A cars primary purpose is as a mode of transport an assault weapons primary purpose is to kill as many motherfuckers as quickly and efficiently as possible.
They were invented for soldiers who's primary directive is to defend and kill as many enemy motherfuckers as quickly and efficiently as possible.
They were not invented to enable nutcases to turn shopping malls, schools and churches into fucking warzones.
Can anyone explain to me why a civilian needs a 30 round magazine in a gun that can fire 850 rounds a minute? If you desperate to use assault weapons join the army or go abroad and work as a mercenary.
The intended use of a item is irrelevant. What it is actually used for is not. Call it bullshit all you want it makes no difference. How about you not using that same old tired bullshit yourself and comment on the rest of the post and not just cherry picking the portion that you like?
I use 30 round mags during competition shoots. Do they have 3 gun competitions over there OP? If not, do you know anything about them? Large cap mags give a person the edge that sometimes is the difference between 1st and 2nd place. Yes they can be done with 10 rounder's, it takes less than 2 seconds to change a mag in my AR15, but sometimes those two seconds make the difference in a match. As long as we are talking about less than 2 seconds. If people feel we should be required to use the smaller mags and it makes no difference in a match. Why would a mag change make such a big difference during a mass shooting?
Can anyone explain to me why anyone other than myself should tell me what I need in life?
Any shooting competition where a larger mag gives you an advantage is not a fair or valid competition in my eyes. Having a larger mag giving you an advantage is like putting a horse shoe in a boxing glove. Why not have a maximum mag capacity of 10 rounds that applies to every competitor? How the fuck will that spoil your fun? But no you've simply just got to have 30 round mags or it just isn't fun anymore is it fucknut?
As for cherry picking? Yeah I cherry pick the bullshit and dissect it, like your bullshit car/gun analogy that I have already bitchslapped sixfootersex for trying to use earlier in the thread.
You are just not prepared to compromise in any way whatsoever and I'm the unreasonable one? Bullshit!
OP I wont even wast my time on your unreasonable arse. This thread has ben a great thread until you decided to show up and start spewing your bullshit. We have had a great discussion here before that. It is because of people like you that us gun people refuse to give a inch. I am done with you so if it makes you feel like more of a man why dont you make another post about me. That way you can feel like you are disecting me [LMAO!!] and while you are at it why dont you throw out a few insults and maybe a couple cuss words. That should do the trick.
Why would anyone think that just because some weapons/magazines are banned that those who wish to do harm won't have them?
I like how FU presents his points in an intelligent and reasonable fashion without resorting to calling other posters names.
I am kinda getting off topic here, but I just wanted to show the women here that shooting comps are not just for men anymore.
In a sport generally dominated by men, 18-year-old Lena Miculek is creating a buzz in the competition-shooting world. Between practice shooting, competing in 24 yearly competitions and guest appearances for sponsors such as Smith and Wesson, Miculek has been quite busy lately, but she was kind enough to meet up with us recently at the NRA show in Houston for an interview.
“I honestly don’t remember the first time I shot a gun. I was so young. My first competition was when I was eight, shooting a .22 rimfire handgun, rifle and shotgun from an aerial position. It was a lot of fun,” Miculek said.
Fast-forward a decade later, and in 2012, Miculek won the IPSC Shotgun World Championship in Hungary.
http://3gunnation.com/news/shooter_profile_lena_miculek
Banning them would make them more difficult to obtain which has got to be better than doing nothing as you watch massacre upon massacre upon massacre upon massacre taking place.
“Well we really would like to ban assault weapons to lessen the number of innocent victims killed by them but F.U NEEDS them for his bullshit little shooting comps so sorry no go”
Assault weapons were designed for MILITARY assaults on opposing forces not nutcases assaults on innocent civilians.
Nobody in their right fucking mind NEEDS an AK47 for christs sake.
(06-12-2013, 09:15 AM)ramseycat Wrote: [ -> ]I like how FU presents his points in an intelligent and reasonable fashion without resorting to calling other posters names.
If FU said the sky was green you would like how he presents it in an intelligent and reasonable fashion even though technically he was talking directly out his arsehole.
(06-12-2013, 09:04 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Why would anyone think that just because some weapons/magazines are banned that those who wish to do harm won't have them?
Because they are stupid and intentionally staying that way.
FU is wasting time and energy responding to that limey liberal faggot.
(06-12-2013, 09:08 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]If you are not interested in shooting comps do not watch it.
Sorry I don't take orders from gun nuts on the internet.
(06-12-2013, 09:26 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2013, 09:15 AM)ramseycat Wrote: [ -> ]I like how FU presents his points in an intelligent and reasonable fashion without resorting to calling other posters names.
If FU said the sky was green you would like how he presents it in an intelligent and reasonable fashion even though technically he was talking directly out his arsehole.
Jealous much? FU has the kind of respect from people you can only dream about.
(06-12-2013, 08:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]This thread has ben a great thread until you decided to show up and start to have the fucking nerve to express a different opinion to me and my gun nut fuck buddies. Who the hell do you think you are? We don't want those kind of opinions around these parts boy got that?
Edited to reflect reality.
(06-12-2013, 09:31 AM)ramseycat Wrote: [ -> ]Jealous much? FU has the kind of respect from people you can only dream about.
If you ever said you respected me I would change my name get a tan and start a new life in the Belgian Congo.
(06-12-2013, 09:27 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]Because they are stupid and intentionally staying that way.
FU is wasting time and energy responding to that limey liberal faggot.
I wonder if ramsey likes the way sixfootersex makes his point reasonably and intelligently without resorting to calling other members names?
(06-12-2013, 09:27 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2013, 09:04 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Why would anyone think that just because some weapons/magazines are banned that those who wish to do harm won't have them?
FU is wasting time and energy responding to that limey liberal faggot.
He don't bother me in the least. I at least keep a open mind on a subject , while people like that have their head stuck so far in the sand that they must breath through their arse. I can talk right around them and still carry on a conversation. I treat it like the anoying little neighbor kid that is always yapping at my heals, mister, mister, mister.