• Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban
    758 replies, posted
I wonder if my Sturmgeschutz is considered an "assault weapon."
I'm calling bullshit on the source. No one else seems to be reporting this
They should probably focus more on gun safety and informing owners and limiting the amount of ammunition civilians can buy. I imagine there would be half as many accidents or killing if things were a little better regulated. Then again, I'm Australian, and no virtually nothing of US laws, so I might be completely wrong.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37118285]I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars? What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help. You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;37118508']So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars? What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help. You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.[/QUOTE] To be honest your house is [B]your[/B] house and you should have the right to protect that, not to mention using non-lethal weapons may just end up with you dead when the intruder brings a more dangerous weapon and let's not forgot it will take the police a good 10 to 15 minutes to get to your house
[QUOTE=james0724;37118553]To be honest your house is [B]your[/B] house and you should have the right to protect that, not to mention using non-lethal weapons may just end up with you dead when the intruder brings a more dangerous weapon and let's not forgot it will take the police a good 10 to 15 minutes to get to your house[/QUOTE] You ever get hit with CS gas? Pretty hard to do anything after a squirt in the eyes.
I dont see why assault weapons shouldn't be banned amongst civillians (You wont ever need an assault weapon, you're not going to be invaded by the taliban) [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37117849]Collection.[/QUOTE] Then buy a deactivated assault rifle
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37118581] Then buy a deactivated assault rifle[/QUOTE] When it's money coming out of my wallet, I expect the full product.
Sigh okay When someone has a gun, or instrument otherwise capablle of inducing at the least bodily harm to me, and is openly announcing his intention to use it against me, I don't give a fuck about him. I like to live, I really do. To put yourself in a position where YOU decide if I live or die and then threaten the latter is pretty goddamned inexcusable in itself. It is not any less of an offense if the criminal is more likely to just leave me alone and take my walllet. I don't give a shit about statistics. I don't give a shit about his welfare. I care only about protecting myself, and I don't particularly trust a criminal to be a good boy and run away with my wallet, leaving me uninjured.
I don't think you understand officer, these crates of fragmentation grenades are my [I]collection[/I] Imagine a criminal attacked you with a grenade, you'd regret not having a grenade of your own to defend yourself! But in all seriousness, I think it's too late for banning firearms in America. It's clear that countries with bans on firearms have far fewer gun-related deaths or crimes but in America's case it's only going to affect people who would have used them for defence- they've been readily available for too long to just expect them to all disappear.
[QUOTE=gothiclampshade;37118733]I don't think you understand officer, these crates of fragmentation grenades are my [I]collection[/I] Imagine a criminal attacked you with a grenade, you'd regret not having a grenade of your own to defend yourself! But in all seriousness, I think it's too late for banning firearms in America. It's clear that countries with bans on firearms have far fewer gun-related deaths or crimes but in America's case it's only going to affect people who would have used them for defence- they've been readily available for too long to just expect them to all disappear.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GunFox;36952813]And in the United States, they mostly just stay home and don't rob people. Again, in spite of every societal factor suggesting a greater amount of robbery, the United States ultimately sports fewer victims of robbery. [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims[/url] Or if we want to be much more general: [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims[/url] Overall there are fewer victims in the United States. Again, despite sporting a thousand reasons for MORE VICTIMS, we have FEWER VICTIMS. What is different? The population is armed. This isn't to say that arming the population is some magic bullet, as solving your underlying issues tends to do the job far better, but it doesn't work like you think it does. EDIT: And just to backup dacommie: [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims[/url] We also sport less rape victims by a significant margin. Again, we aren't doing well as a nation. We should statistically have more. AND YET WE HAVE LESS. America isn't some massive crime riddled nation.[/QUOTE] Not exactly.
[QUOTE=download;37118502]I'm calling bullshit on the source. No one else seems to be reporting this[/QUOTE] MSNBC mentioned it, which is why I looked it up.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37117849]Collection.[/QUOTE] Why would any one want to collect things that can be used to kill people? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.
[QUOTE=Zet;37118826]Why would any one want to collect things that kill? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.[/QUOTE] Amazing pieces of machinery? Historical importance? Understanding the great lengths we go to kill each other over trivial or ignorant things? Before you state demilled... I want bang for my buck.
[QUOTE=Zet;37118826]Why would any one want to collect things that can be used to kill people? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.[/QUOTE] Aren't guns completely illegal in Australia?
Anybody who [b]needs[/b] a gun for personal protection lives in a country with a poor police force.
[QUOTE=gothiclampshade;37118733]I don't think you understand officer, these crates of fragmentation grenades are my [I]collection[/I] Imagine a criminal attacked you with a grenade, you'd regret not having a grenade of your own to defend yourself! But in all seriousness, I think it's too late for banning firearms in America. It's clear that countries with bans on firearms have far fewer gun-related deaths or crimes but in America's case it's only going to affect people who would have used them for defence- they've been readily available for too long to just expect them to all disappear.[/QUOTE] That's such a straw argument it's not even funny. Fragmentation grenades are explosives for chrissakes, they can kill tons of people in a short amount of time. You can't really aim for just one person, it kills everything in its radius. They are illegal to own for that reason, and rightfully so. A firearm, however, is a precision istrument that, in the right hands, can take down any burglar/mugger/baddie without much fear of collateral damage. As long as you stay relatively calm and aren't jumping and jittering around, you should hit your target and not , say, a pregnant lady. [QUOTE=Apache249;37118464]I wonder if my Sturmgeschutz is considered an "assault weapon."[/QUOTE] Sturm means assault in german, wouldn't get my hopes up :v: [QUOTE=FPChris;37118436]Just get a tazer/stungun/pepperspray/knife then goddamn. Aslong as everybody in America has such easy access to weapons it's never ever going to be one of the greatest countries in the world again. rip in peace[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mr apple;37117995]There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mac338;37117924]After two large shootings in near succession, I don't think it's at all strange.[/QUOTE] What most people don't seem to get in this thread is that they don't understand the reason we have guns in the first place. We have a constitutional right to bear arms for a reason, and that reason is not "to go out to the gun range and shoot a bunch of targets" and it's certainly not "To kill random people in the street and incite mass murder". No. We have the right to bear arms in case something takes a turn for the worse. In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves. Or if worst comes to worst, our own government starts to break down in a bad way, we are able to keep them in line. Sure, it does have side effects like a slightly higher rate of gun violence and the idolization of gun culture here in the U.S, but I think if it came down to it and we were invaded it would be worth it. Think of how World War 2 would have gone differently if German citizens had the right to own guns and they had as many guns per capita as we do. The government starts coming in and taking people to ghettos and killing them? You bet the people wouldn't stand for it. I'm not saying it could have completely stopped the holocaust or whatever you want to call it, the fact of the matter is that armed citizenry is a freedom given to us to keep the government in check and make sure the U.S doesn't become the 4th Reich.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37118916]What most people don't seem to get in this thread is that they don't understand the reason we have guns in the first place. We have a constitutional right to bear arms for a reason, and that reason is not "to go out to the gun range and shoot a bunch of targets" and it's certainly not "To kill random people in the street and incite mass murder". No. We have the right to bear arms in case something takes a turn for the worse. In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves. Or if worst comes to worst, our own government starts to break down in a bad way, we are able to keep them in line. Sure, it does have side effects like a slightly higher rate of gun violence and the idolization of gun culture here in the U.S, but I think if it came down to it and we were invaded it would be worth it. Think of how World War 2 would have gone differently if German citizens had the right to own guns and they had as many guns per capita as we do. The government starts coming in and taking people to ghettos and killing them? You bet the people wouldn't stand for it. I'm not saying it could have completely stopped the holocaust or whatever you want to call it, the fact of the matter is that armed citizenry is a freedom given to us to keep the government in check and make sure the U.S doesn't become the 4th Reich.[/QUOTE] Except practically every single government in existence that has been overthrown via a violent revolution (Usually with guns) turned back into a despotic state again. [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37118916]Think of how World War 2 would have gone differently if German citizens had the right to own guns and they had as many guns per capita as we do. The government starts coming in and taking people to ghettos and killing them?[/QUOTE] I can't formulate a response to this to tell you how insane this is. [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37118916] In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously suggesting that a force of untrained people with varying loyalties armed with a wide variety of random weapons (Many of which are not intended for military use) can stand up to a professional military force? [QUOTE=galenmarek;37118956]Then it is a good thing people in America don't need one. But having one helps if there are no police around. America is VERY large. Imagine you live in the middle of the desert with the nearest police station several HUNDRED miles away. Do you SERIOUSLY think that they'll go out of their way to check a house in the middle of nowhere every day? One day a random person comes to the house and proceeds to rob everything you hold dear to you. What will you do without a firearm? Just sit there and say, "Thanks for taking my whole life away just be sure to make it quick when you take it literally."[/QUOTE] Well how do you think people in the middle of the countryside of nations with restrictive gun laws get by? If what you are saying is true, then surely it must be incredibly dangerous to live in the countryside if criminals know they can break in with few police forces around?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37118912]Anybody who [b]needs[/b] a gun for personal protection lives in a country with a poor police force.[/QUOTE] Then it is a good thing people in America don't need one. But having one helps if there are no police around. America is VERY large. Imagine you live in the middle of the desert with the nearest police station several HUNDRED miles away. Do you SERIOUSLY think that they'll go out of their way to check a house in the middle of nowhere every day? One day a random person comes to the house and proceeds to rob everything you hold dear to you. What will you do without a firearm? Just sit there and say, "Thanks for taking my whole life away just be sure to make it quick when you take it literally."
This shit would never happen with communism.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37118611]Sigh okay When someone has a gun, or instrument otherwise capablle of inducing at the least bodily harm to me, and is openly announcing his intention to use it against me, I don't give a fuck about him. I like to live, I really do. To put yourself in a position where YOU decide if I live or die and then threaten the latter is pretty goddamned inexcusable in itself. It is not any less of an offense if the criminal is more likely to just leave me alone and take my walllet. I don't give a shit about statistics. I don't give a shit about his welfare. I care only about protecting myself, and I don't particularly trust a criminal to be a good boy and run away with my wallet, leaving me uninjured.[/QUOTE] My main problem with most people's arguments for gun ownership on this forum is that they always boil down to either "I need it for self defence, If a criminal owns a gun then I want one to defend myself" or "It's my constitutional right." I've yet to actually see an argument that really convinces me civilian gun ownership is a good thing.
[video=youtube;MqrB5LxkqSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqrB5LxkqSE[/video] 1:12 for the pool for AR ban.
[QUOTE=dookster;37119061]My main problem with most people's arguments for gun ownership on this forum is that they always boil down to either "I need it for self defence, If a criminal owns a gun then I want one to defend myself" or "It's my constitutional right." I've yet to actually see an argument that really convinces me civilian gun ownership is a good thing.[/QUOTE] Then you must not read Gunfox's posts. Besides that, if you can't prove it's a bad thing then why should it be banned?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37118953] Well how do you think people in the middle of the countryside of nations with restrictive gun laws get by? If what you are saying is true, then surely it must be incredibly dangerous to live in the countryside if criminals know they can break in with few police forces around?[/QUOTE] Your countryside does not border with one of the most dangerous areas on Earth. An area where they happily execute people just because they can. In a country where it's own leader will be leaving the country after his term is up because it is so dangerous. Not to mention the person you are speaking to happens to live just several hours from said place. So yes it IS very dangerous. "Are you seriously suggesting that a force of untrained people with varying loyalties armed with a wide variety of random weapons (Many of which are not intended for military use) can stand up to a professional military force?" Quite so actually. When you have a populace that has lived on a land for several hundred years and even thousands of years then of course they will understand the land better than any invader could hope for. Not to mention America's climates vary from pretty much everthing you can think of. Do you think USSR pushed back the Germans just because they were better trained? Let's not forget people in America could use any weapon they want so things like international treaties would not hold back some random person from making a chemical and just launching it at an oppossing force with horrific results. Since the people normally defending America are for some reason or another gone then what would keep someone from just raiding a chemical weapons stockpile? Or even setting off a dirty bomb just to deny an enemy an area even if that means that area can no longer used for another thousand years?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37119116]Then you must not read Gunfox's posts. Besides that, if you can't prove it's a bad thing then why should it be banned?[/QUOTE] I've read them. They boiled down.
[QUOTE=galenmarek;37119121]Your countryside does not border with one of the most dangerous areas on Earth. An area where they happily execute people just because they can. In a country where it's own leader will be leaving the country after his term is up because it is so dangerous. Not to mention the person you are speaking to happens to live just several hours from said place. So yes it IS very dangerous.[/QUOTE] So that is for the border with Mexico? Alright fine then, let us say for the sake of argument you lived anywhere else in the United States that wasn't near Mexico. (Like say, Maine, that's pretty far from Mexico) Would you still require a gun in that case?
I just realized a thing, everyone ever assumes that robbers will shoot you, no matter what you do. They will shoot with the intent to kill you. Why do people think that? They wont shoot you unless you pose a threat to them or refuse to coopreate. Putting a hand down under your shirt to unholster your gun will probably get you shot before you even get the gun up to fire it. Then I guess you have to carry your weapon in your hand all the time, but that wont have any consequences at all. Not at all, no no.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119150]I just realized a thing, everyone ever assumes that robbers will shoot you, no matter what you do. They will shoot with the intent to kill you. Why do people think that? They wont shoot you unless you pose a threat to them or refuse to coopreate. Putting a hand down under your shirt to unholster your gun will probably get you shot before you even get the gun up to fire it. Then I guess you have to carry your weapon in your hand all the time, but that wont have any consequences at all. Not at all, no no.[/QUOTE] Or you get a weapon when you hear somebody break in, and confront them prepared to shoot from the start. It's also not illogical to assume that an armed intruder is prepared to use their weapon, and is in fact a smart thing to assume from a survival perspective. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37119145]So that is for the border with Mexico? Alright fine then, let us say for the sake of argument you lived anywhere else in the United States that wasn't near Mexico. (Like say, Maine, that's pretty far from Mexico) Would you still require a gun in that case?[/QUOTE] Home invasions happen everywhere, and the police don't respond instantly(assuming you can call them).
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119150]I just realized a thing, everyone ever assumes that robbers will shoot you, no matter what you do. They will shoot with the intent to kill you. Why do people think that? They wont shoot you unless you pose a threat to them or refuse to coopreate. Putting a hand down under your shirt to unholster your gun will probably get you shot before you even get the gun up to fire it. Then I guess you have to carry your weapon in your hand all the time, but that wont have any consequences at all. Not at all, no no.[/QUOTE] First rule of gun safety states that you don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. If someone points a loaded gun at your head, they put you in harm's way, bad intentions or not. Anyone willing to point a loaded gun at someone's head for petty cash doesn't deserve to be on the streets.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37119176]Home invasions happen everywhere, and the police don't respond instantly(assuming you can call them).[/QUOTE] If you are unable to call them, that's essentially implying you don't have access to a telephone. (And mobile phones are much more common than guns). Let us say that you keep your gun and mobile phone on your side table. If you are unable to use your phone due to the criminal preventing you from doing so, how are you going to use your gun?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.