I remember that one time I was going to shoot up a public place. The thing was I only had ten round magazines so I came to my senses and went home. It's not like I'm going to lug around a bunch of magazines or do reloading drills.

Phew.

(07-31-2012, 04:47 PM)Ilyanna Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 04:41 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Actually you're more likely to kill everyone if your gun [...] holds more than ten bullets.

well, mathematically speaking, that one's actually correct

Heh. That damn math is always getting me.

(07-31-2012, 04:42 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I appreciate ShitStorm's enthusiam, but, to quote of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite movies:

'She's crazier than a rat in a tin shithouse!'

-The Shawshank Redemption, 1994

You are entitled to your opinion but know that my ideas were shaped by the Founders and are based upon the absolute belief in unalienable rights. Maybe you think you those concepts are outdated. The left does. Dunno.

Earlier you said: You bring up Stalin and Hitler and other washed up dictators to deflect.

If there is any lesson to be learned from history it's that it repeats and human nature does not change. Historical examples of societies with gun control in which governments have committed mass murder are not deflecting. They are highly relevant and form the core of the argument of the right to self defense.

I think if there's anything we can learn from history it's that things used to suck a lot more than they do these days.

Optimism. Try it everyone! It's fun!

Do you believe that if the German population had had the right to bear arms in 33, the genocide would have been prevented? Or that Stalin would have been overthrown?

If I can't have a nuclear weapon, can I at least have some RPG's?
















I don't disagree with being able to defend oneself but I do question the sorts of weapons citizens have the right to possess.

User - What sort of weapons do you think citizens should or shouldn't have the right to possess?

Caveat - This is a loaded question. You shouldn't answer it.

(07-31-2012, 05:10 PM)Riotgear Wrote: User - What sort of weapons do you think citizens should or shouldn't have the right to possess?

I can't say I'm familiar enough with weapons to really say but a gun that can fire 50 rounds in a minute seems excessive. What was wrong with the Brady bill? I ask that sincerely.

(07-31-2012, 04:57 PM)shitstorm Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 04:42 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I appreciate ShitStorm's enthusiam, but, to quote of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite movies:

'She's crazier than a rat in a tin shithouse!'

-The Shawshank Redemption, 1994

You are entitled to your opinion but know that my ideas were shaped by the Founders and are based upon the absolute belief in unalienable rights. Maybe you think you those concepts are outdated. The left does. Dunno.

Earlier you said: You bring up Stalin and Hitler and other washed up dictators to deflect.

If there is any lesson to be learned from history it's that it repeats and human nature does not change. Historical examples of societies with gun control in which governments have committed mass murder are not deflecting. They are highly relevant and form the core of the argument of the right to self defense.

Shitstorm, you're always very polite to me. I'll refrain from calling you names from here on out.

You take the Constitution literally. I appreciate that. I think that now, 235 years later, some things have changed. The chances that OUR democratic society becomes a tyranny would be a stretch. That's why I laugh when you say that OUR government is the real enemy.

I appreciate everyone being vigilant. I love the fact that there are people that question every move the government makes. That's healthy. I just don't wholeheartedly believe that there needs to be mass amounts of weapons held by the citizenry in the event that the government decides to kill/enslave us.

I also don't consider myself left wing. I'm a moderate conservative. Served in the military. I've handled/shot guns since being a kid and in the service. Obviously, this is a sensitive subject.

Let me put it this way - The factory magazines for my handgun hold 13 rounds. The law in my state limits magazine capacity to 10. So if I want to 130 rounds in legal magazines I have to carry 13 rather than 10.

In the grand scheme of things 3 more magazines is not a big deal. And any gun owner worth his or her salt will tell you dropping an empty and loading a fresh won't slow them down much if at all. Why? Because they practice, practice, practice.

That's the crux of the logical fallacy that is restricted magazine capacity.

^I agree.
What about the sort of weapon, though? Do you draw a line somewhere? Where? I mean, if the goal really is to defend against government, then I'll be damned if I don't want that nuclear weapon. Or AT LEAST a flak. Because, let's face it - what is it that 30 SIG's will be able to do against one or two F 4?

(07-31-2012, 02:56 PM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 02:38 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Bah. My hand is smaller & my fingers aren't that chunky.

Every time I even think of man hands I flash on an episode of Seinfield.

Me too.

I also end up thinking about the other episode where the girl looks ugly in different lighting. That was pretty funny too.

Youd be so pretty if you just got a nose job - Cramer

(07-31-2012, 05:05 PM)Ilyanna Wrote: Do you believe that if the German population had had the right to bear arms in 33, the genocide would have been prevented? Or that Stalin would have been overthrown?

No because the Germans were brainwashed and bought the propaganda ...

(07-31-2012, 06:55 PM)pspence Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 02:56 PM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 02:38 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Bah. My hand is smaller & my fingers aren't that chunky.

Every time I even think of man hands I flash on an episode of Seinfield.

Me too.

I also end up thinking about the other episode where the girl looks ugly in different lighting. That was pretty funny too.

Youd be so pretty if you just got a nose job - Cramer

Jesus Christ Pspence, don't quote someone if you can't even bother to spell their name right. I don't even think you got the quote right. You're no better than that nigger he told off on stage.

Doesn't just about everyone in Switzerland have a gun, but the crime rate is low? What are they doing that is right? I guess it's just a different breed of people.

(07-31-2012, 05:44 PM)Ilyanna Wrote: ^I agree.
What about the sort of weapon, though? Do you draw a line somewhere? Where? I mean, if the goal really is to defend against government, then I'll be damned if I don't want that nuclear weapon. Or AT LEAST a flak. Because, let's face it - what is it that 30 SIG's will be able to do against one or two F 4?

I don't draw the line anywhere. Of course I can speak only for myself but I think I'm as qualified as any other human being to apply deadly force. And I don't trust anyone more than myself to do so.

So goddamn it that I don't have the really powerful shit.

(07-31-2012, 07:11 PM)sally Wrote: Doesn't just about everyone in Switzerland have a gun, but the crime rate is low? What are they doing that is right? I guess it's just a different breed of people.

Correct. Americans are violent crazy assholes. The Swiss are such kind gentle people these sorts of things can go on [holy shit!] -

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

(07-31-2012, 07:07 PM)sally Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 06:55 PM)pspence Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 02:56 PM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 02:38 PM)Duchess Wrote:


Bah. My hand is smaller & my fingers aren't that chunky.

Every time I even think of man hands I flash on an episode of Seinfield.

Me too.

I also end up thinking about the other episode where the girl looks ugly in different lighting. That was pretty funny too.

Youd be so pretty if you just got a nose job - Cramer

Jesus Christ Pspence, don't quote someone if you can't even bother to spell their name right. I don't even think you got the quote right. You're no better than that nigger he told off on stage.

You didn't stop to get jujubee?

So the moniker was deserved. Interesting.

RANDOM THOUGHTS FROM A (MULTIPLE) GUN OWNER:

I suggest that the reason the Scond Amendment is in the Bill of RIGHTS, to provide the people with the means to resist a tyranical government, is just as valid today as when the Bill of RIGHTS was passed. Anyone who does not understand this is, in my opinion, naive. Our liberties are being surreptitiously eroded at best and obliterated at worst by our government. Our rights are in the hands of elected representatives who allow themselves be stampeded when someone yells "threat" and so goddamned worried about reelection that they follow the pack rather than take a courageous stand. Throughout the Western world, power is being taken from the people and consolidated in the hands of the powerful.

Before any government can truly hobble its citizens, it must first disarm them. Shitstorm is absolutely right about that. That Genocide Chart that she put up was copyrighted by Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership. Ask the Jews. They know all about it. Tell THEM it can't happen and that the right to bear arms is superfluous.

Care to argue that the chances the citizens of the United States WILL need to protect themselves against the government are so small that eliminating or critically impairing the right to gun ownership so as to render it meaningless probably won't matter? The chances of you having an automobile accident are also slight. How many of you drive around without insurance? Why not? Because if you lose, you lose BIG. The right to own firearms is INSURANCE!

The other reason the right to bear arms should not be crippled is home defense. Michael Moore once made a comment that the areas that have the highest level of firearm ownership have the lowest crime rates. He thought that he was being smart and asked if they had the lowest crime rates, why did the residents need firearms to protect their homes? The dumb fuck didn't stop to think that there may have been a cause and effect relationship at work. I suggest that the reason these areas have lower crime rates is because where a significant portion of the population has firearms (ie. rural areas), the criminals KNOW IT.

I'm certainly not saying that there should be NO restrictions. There are two types of people who should not be trusted with firearms: criminals and crazies.

With respect to criminals: face reality, people. You CAN'T STOP the criminals from getting their hands on firearms. What you CAN do is make them awfully damned sorry that they DID illegally possess or use a firearm. Massachusetts, for example, had VERY strict penalties for illegal gun ownership. You go to jail or prison. PERIOD. Penalties for a criminal act should increase exponentially if a firearm is involved and the sentence should be automatic.

As for the crazies, one thing that you can do that would be effective and would stand a chance of becoming law is creating a means of checking the psychiatric history of people who attempt to legally purchase firearms. There is a question about psychiatric treatment on the Federal Firearms Application (can't remember exactly how it's worded, been a while since I've purchased a weapon - anyone help me out?). If you indicate that you have received a certain level of psychiatric care within a certain period of time, you will not receive permission to make the purchase. But there is no method for the government to check whether or not you are telling the truth when you answer "no".

I suggest, for the sake of discussion, mental health professionals being required to make reports of the names of those they feel too dangerous or unstable to possess firearms to a central registry which the government can access ONLY for the purpose of checking firearm purchase applications. Any who apply to purchase a firearm would be required to sign a waiver of their right to privacy SOLELY to the extent that the government could check to see if his/her name is in the "banned" pool.

Final thought: Ultimately, the nuts and bolts of regulation is done by the states. I live in New York, where fully automatic weapons and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is prohibited. In order to own a handgun you must have a permit, as you must to carry a pistol concealed. Next door, in Vermont, they have NO regulations on fully automatic weapons, magazine capacity, pistol ownership or the right to carry concealed weapons.

Vermont. That's right. That raging hotbed of right wingers and conservative lunatics. It is actually something social liberals/progressives/anarchists (like me) and conservatives can agree upon.

That and distain for all the "We have to do SOMETHING even if we don't have any idea WHAT" Chicken Littles out there who pop up whenever these tragedies occur.

P.S. After the horror had faded, my next reaction was astonishment that in a western state like Colorado, at a midnight movie showing, NOBODY but the crazy was packing. Might have been an entirely different outcome if one brave person with a weapon had been in the crowd.

NUFF SAID