• Obama to ban assault weapons.
    1,785 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901723]okay i don't really know about ~receiver specifications~ but the gun i posted and the one he posted are the same weapon or based on the same design???[/QUOTE] What were you trying to prove by posting that?
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901723]okay i don't really know about ~receiver specifications~ but the gun i posted and the one he posted are the same weapon or based on the same design???[/QUOTE] They're based on the same original extremely basic design, but are otherwise built completely differently. That first rifle could've been made in America and just be designed to *look* like an AK-74. (Also posting "???" does not make you look coherent, it makes you look like a Mom on facebook.)
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901723]okay i don't really know about ~receiver specifications~ but the gun i posted and the one he posted are the same weapon or based on the same design???[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=cccritical;38901429]passenger jets, derived from fighter jets, developed for stealth reconnaissance and bombing knives, dating back to the stone age, made for hunting bows and javelins for the same purpose helicopters developed by Sikorsky for the Korean war GPS and the internet developed by DARPA to 1. make nuclear launchers more accurate, and 2. provide fast efficient frontline communication interchangeable parts to make repairing rifles easier I'll get you sources on every single one of these tomorrow if you'd like, but until then, please stop posting thx[/QUOTE] urgent, please respond
-snap-
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;38901741]Holy shit it's like all of the nominees for dumbest post of the year can come right from this thread[/QUOTE] >The joke >Your head
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;38901741]Holy shit it's like all of the nominees for dumbest post of the year can come right from this thread[/QUOTE] he was taking the piss out of an actually dumb poster
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;38901741]Holy shit it's like all of the nominees for dumbest post of the year can come right from this thread[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain he was joking. Look at that "jeez"
[QUOTE=zydos;38898541]So you have a killing-machine just to have fun with it? Sounds pretty cool man[/QUOTE] Why are sports cars legal? Their sole function is to go fast. This puts the public in danger, and they are unnecessary. They should be banned.
ninjas
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;38901753]-snap-[/QUOTE] He was being satirical.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;38901741]Holy shit it's like all of the nominees for dumbest post of the year can come right from this thread[/QUOTE] he was making a joke lol
[QUOTE=Apache249;38901721]A couple of brand new Su-27s were purchased by a private buyer.[/QUOTE] with missiles and miniguns affixed?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38901777]he was making a joke lol[/QUOTE] Fixed :<
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901779]with missiles and miniguns affixed?[/QUOTE] Nope. The plane was [B]re-purposed[/B] for [B]other uses.[/B]
[QUOTE=zydos;38901535]A) Don't attempt to insult my intellect, there is no lower blow/easier way out, and frankly it just makes you sound like as much of a stupid twat as I do B) I appreciate firearms as a mechanism, as a well-crafted, evolved means of killing, hunting, etc. It is the perfect example of mankind's wide and powerful grip on the world. We can hold a piece of metal in our hands that is effectively an extension of our will. If I want to kill a squirrel, I no longer have to get bloody and maim it, I can just point my human-power at it and blow it to pieces. I find their inner-workings fascinating, which is why I love my rifle and care for it immensely. What I dislike is their being used on humans as a "fuck you, you're toast" thing. Fucked my wife? Why duke it out like men when I can just shoot you? Try to steal my car? I'll just shoot you. It is definitely the quickest way to solve a problem, but by no means is it the best or cleanest. If somebody wants to break into my house, I will defend it. I will more readily swing a bat at somebody's head, of which I can control the force, than pull that trigger, because shooting somebody is so absolute. You can't control how much damage you do (well, only by aiming at a given region), it's just 'BANG'. You have to make that decision to decimate someone, a cop-out which quite frankly is unfair. It's just as unfair if a gangster uses it to blow somebody's brains out. Bang, they're dead, just like that. Therein lies the problem, it IS so absolute. There are all sorts of shapes, sizes, and configurations of firearms that can rip you to shreds or barely puncture a thick jacket, but when people start to buy assault weapons for 'home defense', it seems a tad over-kill. Even the rounds people choose are a bit much. A shotgun loaded with birdshot, sure, that'll tear you up nicely, maybe you can walk away (or stumble out of the house you were trying to rob), but when somebody shoots you with a slug, holy fuck you're obliterated. The problem is that people have such easy access to things like this. Now imagine some crazy wants to kill some people. He goes through the apparently easy-ish process legitimate gun owners go through to acquire high-calibre/powered firearms, and uses them on people. Weapons like this, anything that isn't classified as a hunting-weapon, should either be banned or severely regulated. Test after test after license after law, just to acquire said AK47. If somebody wanted to commit a massacre, they'd have a damn hard time getting their assault weapons, because they'd have to go through a wild system to get it, and even then they'd have it tightly controlled and registered, so the government can just look at their health and history and go "Fucking serious? No, you can't have an M14". Sure, they'll be able to acquire a hunting shotgun or a small-calibre rifle, which only somewhat limits the damage they can do. I don't care if you want to own an M1014, you don't [I]need[/I] one as a law-abiding citizen. You don't ever need to pump 6 slugs into somebody in a matter of seconds. That's what scares me. If you really feel the need to own a firearm for home defense, that's your choice. You choose to walk that line of "well it depends where the bullet hits, I may or may not kill another human being". Buy a baseball bat, buy a fucking sword, or buy a gun. In any case, you're making the decision to wound a human being, but you just must also make the extra decision on how severely you will. Yet the ban will do no good, guns will always be a problem, as will the black-market that they are shipped around in endlessly, so we're eternally fucked over. Nothing will either change people's minds or stop gun violence, which is just something we'll have to get used to. Some European nations have banned guns all together, to what avail? Guns are around, man, you can't stop them Love, me[/QUOTE] So your argument is that guns are bad because they kill people, whereas truncheons and baseball bats can be applied with specific force to deliberately maim and wound instead of killing? And that guns are unsporting and people should have to fight off home invaders 'like real men'? Really? Have you ever actually been in a fight? Have you ever felt your life was in danger? Have you been watching too many Westerns and have this absurd, romantic notion of a fair fight? If someone threatens my life, I aim to remove the threat as effectively as possible. That means either shooting them, or swinging that baseball bat as hard as I possibly can, because anything less leaves me more likely to get killed as a result. Daintily smacking someone to stun them is idiotic beyond all belief.
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901779]with missiles and miniguns affixed?[/QUOTE] probably not since there's no safe or responsible way to utilize miniguns and missiles from a supersonic aerial platform seriously try not to sprain a lobe understanding this
[QUOTE=catbarf;38901797]So your argument is that guns are bad because they kill people, whereas truncheons and baseball bats can be applied with specific force to deliberately maim and wound instead of killing? And that guns are unsporting and people should have to fight off home invaders 'like real men'? Really? Have you ever actually been in a fight? Have you ever felt your life was in danger? Have you been watching too many Westerns and have this absurd, romantic notion of a fair fight? If someone threatens my life, I aim to remove the threat as effectively as possible. That means either shooting them, or swinging that baseball bat as hard as I possibly can, because anything less leaves me more likely to get killed as a result. Daintily smacking someone to stun them is idiotic beyond all belief.[/QUOTE] What have you done?!? [QUOTE=zydos;38901678]awww my giant post went unnoticed, oh well I'm done here anyways. Evening, fuckas[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Apache249;38901794]Nope. The plane was [B]re-purposed[/B] for [B]other uses.[/B][/QUOTE] But Apache! Weapons of WAR can only be used for KILLING AND MAIMING!
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38901809]But Apache! Weapons of WAR can only be used for KILLING AND MAIMING![/QUOTE] OH THE HUMANITY!
[QUOTE=zydos;38901535]A) Don't attempt to insult my intellect, there is no lower blow/easier way out, and frankly it just makes you sound like as much of a stupid twat as I do B) I appreciate firearms as a mechanism, as a well-crafted, evolved means of killing, hunting, etc. It is the perfect example of mankind's wide and powerful grip on the world. We can hold a piece of metal in our hands that is effectively an extension of our will. If I want to kill a squirrel, I no longer have to get bloody and maim it, I can just point my human-power at it and blow it to pieces. I find their inner-workings fascinating, which is why I love my rifle and care for it immensely. What I dislike is their being used on humans as a "fuck you, you're toast" thing. Fucked my wife? Why duke it out like men when I can just shoot you? Try to steal my car? I'll just shoot you. It is definitely the quickest way to solve a problem, but by no means is it the best or cleanest. If somebody wants to break into my house, I will defend it. I will more readily swing a bat at somebody's head, of which I can control the force, than pull that trigger, because shooting somebody is so absolute. You can't control how much damage you do (well, only by aiming at a given region), it's just 'BANG'. You have to make that decision to decimate someone, a cop-out which quite frankly is unfair. It's just as unfair if a gangster uses it to blow somebody's brains out. Bang, they're dead, just like that. Therein lies the problem, it IS so absolute. There are all sorts of shapes, sizes, and configurations of firearms that can rip you to shreds or barely puncture a thick jacket, but when people start to buy assault weapons for 'home defense', it seems a tad over-kill. Even the rounds people choose are a bit much. A shotgun loaded with birdshot, sure, that'll tear you up nicely, maybe you can walk away (or stumble out of the house you were trying to rob), but when somebody shoots you with a slug, holy fuck you're obliterated. The problem is that people have such easy access to things like this. Now imagine some crazy wants to kill some people. He goes through the apparently easy-ish process legitimate gun owners go through to acquire high-calibre/powered firearms, and uses them on people. Weapons like this, anything that isn't classified as a hunting-weapon, should either be banned or severely regulated. Test after test after license after law, just to acquire said AK47. If somebody wanted to commit a massacre, they'd have a damn hard time getting their assault weapons, because they'd have to go through a wild system to get it, and even then they'd have it tightly controlled and registered, so the government can just look at their health and history and go "Fucking serious? No, you can't have an M14". Sure, they'll be able to acquire a hunting shotgun or a small-calibre rifle, which only somewhat limits the damage they can do. I don't care if you want to own an M1014, you don't [I]need[/I] one as a law-abiding citizen. You don't ever need to pump 6 slugs into somebody in a matter of seconds. That's what scares me. If you really feel the need to own a firearm for home defense, that's your choice. You choose to walk that line of "well it depends where the bullet hits, I may or may not kill another human being". Buy a baseball bat, buy a fucking sword, or buy a gun. In any case, you're making the decision to wound a human being, but you just must also make the extra decision on how severely you will. Yet the ban will do no good, guns will always be a problem, as will the black-market that they are shipped around in endlessly, so we're eternally fucked over. Nothing will either change people's minds or stop gun violence, which is just something we'll have to get used to. Some European nations have banned guns all together, to what avail? Guns are around, man, you can't stop them Love, me[/QUOTE] You realize that your .30-30 calibre Winchester actually is a more "high-powered" round than what was used in the school shooting, right? .223 is the most common calibre used in these shootings, often due to the availability of it, and it's an incredibly weak round, it's actually illegal to hunt deer with it in most places. And there are many things YOU don't need either, care to give up indoor plumbing, your television, your computer, your telephone, and your car? How about giving up your gun, which you claim to care about so dearly, yet slander in public? If we based everything off of need instead of desire, our nation as we know it would collapse into economic turmoil. There is also the fact that if you beat someone with a baseball bat, they'll sue you, and you're probably more likely to be charged by the police than if you shoot the person, which, by the way, is [B]not an inevitability[/B] when you confront them with a gun. There is no issue with the access to firearms, there is an issue with people's ignorance to them, and you most certainly are ignorant of firearms, despite owning one, if you think all people do with guns is kill each other, and that a range is a dangerous place simply because of one dude shooting at a pile of sand containing god-knows-what in a video that could have easily been staged. Guns were never the problem here, the problem was mental health, why do mentally ill people keep killing people? That is the real problem with these killings, because a gun is simply one way to facilitate this. Banning guns in Britain has had a net-negative effect for safety, banning guns in Canada has had no identifiable effect on murder rate or crime, and actually last year homicide rates went up, and knives beat out guns as the number one killer in instances of homicide in Canada. As for banning based on calibre of perceived "power" that will eliminate segments of hunting, because high-calibre and high-powered rounds are needed to kill a deer, moose, or bear. The guns used in these shootings are small-calibre rifles. The M-14, also, would make a very effective deer gun, and I'm positive it has here in Canada, just as the AR-15 makes an effective groundhog gun in the US, a .50 Desert Eagle is used to hunt deer, and a .357 Smith and Wesson is used to hunt hogs. And actually, a study done by Harvard showed that the European nations that had bans on handguns were actually more violent nations than their neighbours who hadn't. Guns weren't the problem and they will never be, guns are a scapegoat because nobody want to address the real problems, partly because it's too expensive to address poverty, social exclusion, and mental illness, and partly because fixing the true causes of this kind of violence will take more time to see a benefit than implementing a fell-good gun ban. As for you trying to take moral high ground on insults, you were the one who called the vast majority of gun owners "fucking idiots" for having multiple firearms, and have been insulting gun owners other than apparently yourself since you began in this thread. You want respect shown to you, you want people to lay off the insults, then show some goddamn respect back, instead of calling everyone idiots, psychopaths, and murderers.
I could go on a five page rant about how terrible this ban is, but I'm going to sum it up in a 10 minute video from a man from the San Diego Police Department which describes exactly why: [video=youtube;LB8gNCnLDZI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB8gNCnLDZI[/video] The gun is completely ineffective as it only bans guns for looks. Assault weapons are nothing but a scapegoat that people blame incidents like school shootings on, just like violent video games.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38901821]You realize that your .30-30 calibre Winchester actually is a more "high-powered" round than what was used in the school shooting, right? .223 is the most common calibre used in these shootings, often due to the availability of it, and it's an incredibly weak round, it's actually illegal to hunt deer with it in most places. And there are many things YOU don't need either, care to give up indoor plumbing, your television, your computer, your telephone, and your car? How about giving up your gun, which you claim to care about so dearly, yet slander in public? If we based everything off of need instead of desire, our nation as we know it would collapse into economic turmoil. There is also the fact that if you beat someone with a baseball bat, they'll sue you, and you're probably more likely to be charged by the police than if you shoot the person, which, by the way, is [B]not an inevitability[/B] when you confront them with a gun. There is no issue with the access to firearms, there is an issue with people's ignorance to them, and you most certainly are ignorant of firearms, despite owning one, if you think all people do with guns is kill each other, and that a range is a dangerous place simply because of one dude shooting at a pile of sand containing god-knows-what in a video that could have easily been staged. Guns were never the problem here, the problem was mental health, why do mentally ill people keep killing people? That is the real problem with these killings, because a gun is simply one way to facilitate this. Banning guns in Britain has had a net-negative effect for safety, banning guns in Canada has had no identifiable effect on murder rate or crime, and actually last year homicide rates went up, and knives beat out guns as the number one killer in instances of homicide in Canada. As for banning based on calibre of perceived "power" that will eliminate segments of hunting, because high-calibre and high-powered rounds are needed to kill a deer, moose, or bear. The guns used in these shootings are small-calibre rifles. The M-14, also, would make a very effective deer gun, and I'm positive it has here in Canada, just as the AR-15 makes an effective groundhog gun in the US, a .50 Desert Eagle is used to hunt deer, and a .357 Smith and Wesson is used to hunt hogs. And actually, a study done by Harvard showed that the European nations that had bans on handguns were actually more violent nations than their neighbours who hadn't. Guns weren't the problem and they will never be, guns are a scapegoat because nobody want to address the real problems, partly because it's too expensive to address poverty, social exclusion, and mental illness, and partly because fixing the true causes of this kind of violence will take more time to see a benefit than implementing a fell-good gun ban. As for you trying to take moral high ground on insults, you were the one who called the vast majority of gun owners "fucking idiots" for having multiple firearms, and have been insulting gun owners other than apparently yourself since you began in this thread. You want respect shown to you, you want people to lay off the insults, then show some goddamn respect back, instead of calling everyone idiots, psychopaths, and murderers.[/QUOTE] You too! [QUOTE=zydos;38901678]awww my giant post went unnoticed, oh well I'm done here anyways. Evening, fuckas[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cccritical;38901750]urgent, please respond[/QUOTE] ok we already discussed passenger jets which was met with posts of planes that were outfitted with recon/weapons tech so moving on knives made for hunting, something we don't need to do anymore, so now we have knives with blades that are not made to cut flesh but rather rope and wood and such. bows and javellins are killing tools so idk why you brought those up to refute me helicopters falls under the same category as planes. there are civilian variants. gps and internet, again, civilian variants. my tom tom and my facebook profile were not meant to kill people. interchangeable parts... you've got me there i guess. but car manufacturing plants don't also built guns so.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38901809]But Apache! Weapons of WAR can only be used for KILLING AND MAIMING![/QUOTE] FACT: weapons of war HAVE NEVER BEEN and CANNOT BE repurposed for peaceful use FACT: the scarier a gun looks, the deadlier it is FACT: every person who has ever held a gun has used it to go on a rampage
[QUOTE=zydos;38901535]Why duke it out like men[/QUOTE] Pffftttttt. [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;38901837]FACT: weapons of war HAVE NEVER BEEN and CANNOT BE repurposed for peaceful use FACT: the scarier a gun looks, the deadlier it is FACT: every person who has ever held a gun has used it to go on a rampage[/QUOTE] FACT: THE LESS YOU KNOW ABOUT GUNS THE MORE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ABOUT THEM.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38901821]There is no issue with the access to firearms, there is an issue with people's ignorance to them, and you most certainly are ignorant of firearms, despite owning one, if you think all people do with guns is kill each other, and that a range is a dangerous place simply because of one dude shooting at a pile of sand containing god-knows-what in a video that could have easily been staged.[/QUOTE] He was shooting at a solid metal target of some sort. Anyone who owns a high-powered rifle should fucking know better.
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901832] but car manufacturing plants don't also built guns so.[/QUOTE] Actually during WW2 many car plants produced firearms for the US Military with modifications to machinery.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38901799]probably not since there's no safe or responsible way to utilize miniguns and missiles from a supersonic aerial platform seriously try not to sprain a lobe understanding this[/QUOTE] dude what if i just wanna fly around the desert and shoot rocks n shit the risks outweigh the safe and responsible activities
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;38901832]ok we already discussed passenger jets which was met with posts of planes that were outfitted with recon/weapons tech so moving on knives made for hunting, something we don't need to do anymore, so now we have knives with blades that are not made to cut flesh but rather rope and wood and such. bows and javellins are killing tools so idk why you brought those up to refute me helicopters falls under the same category as planes. there are civilian variants. gps and internet, again, civilian variants. my tom tom and my facebook profile were not meant to kill people. interchangeable parts... you've got me there i guess. but car manufacturing plants don't also built guns so.[/QUOTE] haha this shit actually makes sense to you doesn't it
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38901821]You realize that your .30-30 calibre Winchester actually is a more "high-powered" round than what was used in the school shooting, right? .223 is the most common calibre used in these shootings, often due to the availability of it, and it's an incredibly weak round, it's actually illegal to hunt deer with it in most places. And there are many things YOU don't need either, care to give up indoor plumbing, your television, your computer, your telephone, and your car? How about giving up your gun, which you claim to care about so dearly, yet slander in public? If we based everything off of need instead of desire, our nation as we know it would collapse into economic turmoil. There is also the fact that if you beat someone with a baseball bat, they'll sue you, and you're probably more likely to be charged by the police than if you shoot the person, which, by the way, is [B]not an inevitability[/B] when you confront them with a gun. There is no issue with the access to firearms, there is an issue with people's ignorance to them, and you most certainly are ignorant of firearms, despite owning one, if you think all people do with guns is kill each other, and that a range is a dangerous place simply because of one dude shooting at a pile of sand containing god-knows-what in a video that could have easily been staged. Guns were never the problem here, the problem was mental health, why do mentally ill people keep killing people? That is the real problem with these killings, because a gun is simply one way to facilitate this. Banning guns in Britain has had a net-negative effect for safety, banning guns in Canada has had no identifiable effect on murder rate or crime, and actually last year homicide rates went up, and knives beat out guns as the number one killer in instances of homicide in Canada. As for banning based on calibre of perceived "power" that will eliminate segments of hunting, because high-calibre and high-powered rounds are needed to kill a deer, moose, or bear. The guns used in these shootings are small-calibre rifles. The M-14, also, would make a very effective deer gun, and I'm positive it has here in Canada, just as the AR-15 makes an effective groundhog gun in the US, a .50 Desert Eagle is used to hunt deer, and a .357 Smith and Wesson is used to hunt hogs. And actually, a study done by Harvard showed that the European nations that had bans on handguns were actually more violent nations than their neighbours who hadn't. Guns weren't the problem and they will never be, guns are a scapegoat because nobody want to address the real problems, partly because it's too expensive to address poverty, social exclusion, and mental illness, and partly because fixing the true causes of this kind of violence will take more time to see a benefit than implementing a fell-good gun ban. As for you trying to take moral high ground on insults, you were the one who called the vast majority of gun owners "fucking idiots" for having multiple firearms, and have been insulting gun owners other than apparently yourself since you began in this thread. You want respect shown to you, you want people to lay off the insults, then show some goddamn respect back, instead of calling everyone idiots, psychopaths, and murderers.[/QUOTE] I can generalize but I never called anybody out, whereas you all singled me out, not "people that share my mindset", except in one post where "fudds like me" So apparently instead of reading what I wrote with an open mind, you decided to try to justify things like using fucking Desert Eagle as a hunting gun because you can't be bothered to go "oh, okay" Read again, thanks, bye
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.