• Obama to ban assault weapons.
    1,785 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38903470][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U[/media] are you related perchance[/QUOTE] Okay, that woman was pretty dumb. "Do you know what a barrel shroud is?" "No, I don't know what a barrel shroud is." And yet she wants it banned. *snicker*
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903441]there's also a form for you to fill out and you have to wait like 6 months for it be approved but for NFA stuff it's really just a matter of waiting[/QUOTE] dont go and make the same mistakes as the other people in this thread by talking about things you have no knowledge about take a look at title 18 part 1 chapter 40, subpart 843 of the USC [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-40[/url] its NOT just a matter of waiting, you'll basically never get ahold of legal explosives (aside from low explosives like fireworks) unless you are a very legitimate business.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38903417]its not even CLOSE to as easy as buying tax stamp weapons and parts[/QUOTE] Actually, it's a lot easier to make something like dynamite, though I think IEDs like that are still illegal in the US.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38903470][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U[/media] are you related perchance[/QUOTE] Found a great related video to that [video=youtube;84ptFVq22PY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY&feature=player_embedded[/video] /this thread
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38903506]Actually, it's a lot easier to make something like dynamite, though I think IEDs like that are still illegal in the US.[/QUOTE] its way easier to MAKE an explosive than it is to legally get it, of course its also wayyyy more dangerous and very illegal (without the proper permits, as the USC outlines), so theres that
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38903513]Found a great related video to that [video=youtube;84ptFVq22PY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY&feature=player_embedded[/video] /this thread[/QUOTE] That's brilliant.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38903497]dont go and make the same mistakes as the other people in this thread by talking about things you have no knowledge about take a look at title 18 part 1 chapter 40, subpart 843 of the USC [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-40[/url] its NOT just a matter of waiting, you'll basically never get ahold of legal explosives (aside from low explosives like fireworks) unless you are a very legitimate business.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845[/url] so about half of the destructive devices clause is there for no reason because you can't have it anyway? that's pretty goofy if it's true
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;38903444]They can gladly go ahead and ban high capacity magainzes over 20 or 30 but maybe allow organizations that shoot Machine guns and etc have licenses that are soley for people paying to get into a gun event to shoot them. To ban guns completely is dumb, to ban rifles looking like "super deadly weapons" is dumb. Our right to carry is not only to protect our selfs from criminals or other people looking to harm us but the government it's self. Coming from my super anti-gun side of the family I consider my self a gun hobbist. To be told that I can trust the goverment and police force around me to take care of me is bullshit. Last time we had to call the police for a person who got hit by a run away car they showed up in 15 minutes. If they break into my house 15 minutes could be me dead or robbed of everything. To trust my goverment? Eh I don't see them trying to become some nazi germany any time soon but I'd rather not give up the one way to help prevent the government from ever taking over completely. Theres a reason other countries can't just invade the US. Instead of just fighting our military you fight the civilians too. Though the quote wasn't apparently said, it's damn well true. Aslong as pistols and rifles upto semi-automatic are allowed in civilian hands with ammo capacity's around 10 to 15 i'll be fine. That allows for typical rifles like M1 garand's and etc not to be banned and pistols to be kept. At the same time things outside gun hobbyists main intrests like firing machine guns will be kept at main paid events with licenses handed out by the state or federal goverment to allow them solely for that purpose. Everything he used technically is stuff i agree we should still be able to carry. I just say it's an unfortunate event and shows we need better reform in mental care and safety. Even if they ban rifles or guns or extremely limit them we have a huge gun dump everywhere. You can't just say "hand them back" it'd lead to a massive dump in the black market and no one would hand em back. It just doesn't work like that. Making it stricter to recieve a rifle or pistol makes sense. A physc test by a doctor or etc then a regular paper test to show your sane and don't have any mental issues. Yeah if a person REALLY wants to shoot up a school or etc they would be able to fake there way through but when they are doing that it's not even a mental issue that's just someone who wants to cause trouble. And we can't ban things cause someone wants to cause trouble otherwise we'd all just sit around doing nothing cause everything would be banned.[/QUOTE] Just quoting myself to add-on, I constantly deal with "guns should be banned cause they kill people" and I try my hardest to ignore it and just be like "Your ignorant" but they seriously are. I hear well "Your going to change your mind when your older you just wait or if you had a gun pointed at you, you'd want to ban them". Well no, I guess i'm sane and fair enough to not take unfortunate situations I'm in to try and change things. If I died cause someone took a gun and shot me I would actually prefer if no gun laws were changed. I'd want the shooter to be killed or put in jail for life and everyone to respect that fact and move on, not sobber over me and how guns are bad. In another case if i was stabbed on the street walking home one night all that would be said well "Young adult stabbed on street" and then they wouldn't say anything else but "Well maybe we should bolster the police around the area to lower this" and thats it. Banning knives wouldn't even be brought up cause that's dumb. So when it comes to gun's everyone seems to think well "We can trust the government, we can trust the police to protect us in a timely manner, we can [i]trust[/i]." So far from my experience in life, Trusting others with what they are responsible for has always disappointing me. If this country was founded on the prinicpial of being able to take my safety into my own responsibility then i'll gladly keep it going as the best person i depend on in defending myself is me. I refuse to ever trust the police force in any area unless it's response time is in the single digit seconds, not minutes. It'll never be there either so the best defense is your own defense.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903588][url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845[/url] so about half of the destructive devices clause is there for no reason because you can't have it anyway? that's pretty goofy if it's true[/QUOTE] Did you actually read that or what lol: [quote] The term “destructive device” means ... (3)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.[/quote] DDs have nothing to do with civil engineering explosives from a legal point a view
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;38903444]You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.[/QUOTE] uhhh no you cannot invade the mainland United States because the degree of power projection that you'd require would be enormous; first-world nations themselves have a hard enough time sending forces in large numbers over seas, and the vast amount of space that the invading army would have to cover in the US would also be too much (look at how much trouble the US has trying to wrestle Afghanistan from the Taliban). and if you look at it from a cultural perspective America isn't even suited for austerity unlike most of the nations that have found themselves under their boot
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;38903690]uhhh no you cannot invade the mainland United States because the degree of power projection that you'd require would be enormous; first-world nations themselves have a hard enough time sending forces in large numbers over seas, and the vast amount of space that the invading army would have to cover in the US would also be too much (look at how much trouble the US has trying to wrestle Afghanistan from the Taliban). and if you look at it from a cultural perspective America isn't even suited for austerity unlike most of the nations that have found themselves under their boot[/QUOTE] CubeManv2's quote was said 70 years ago, by a man who had just undertaken the greatest sneak attack in modern history.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38905881]CubeManv2's quote was said 70 years ago, by a man who had just undertaken the greatest sneak attack in modern history.[/QUOTE] Wasn't that Hirohito?
[QUOTE=Ridge;38905881]CubeManv2's quote was said 70 years ago, by a man who had just undertaken the greatest sneak attack in modern history.[/QUOTE] the United States hasn't really seen a proper land invasion of that scale yet the closest to that was when the american south had that big rebellion in the 1860s, and that failed because the south was crippled from the outset
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38906583]the United States hasn't really seen a proper land invasion of that scale yet the closest to that was when the american south had that big rebellion in the 1860s, and that failed because the south was crippled from the outset[/QUOTE] Have you stopped to consider WHY the United States hasn't had one? Maybe its a bit presumptuous to say its because we citizens own guns, but I imagine that if we were in fact to be invaded, that at least a decent portion of gun owners will join the fight in their localities.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38905881]CubeManv2's quote was said 70 years ago, by a man who had just undertaken the greatest sneak attack in modern history.[/QUOTE]The quote is actually not real; Yamamoto never said anything of the sort.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;38896903]wait a minute [h2]why are people drawing parallels between gun control and nazi germany[/h2] are you people legitimately retarded or just thick[/QUOTE] Nazi Germany enacted gun control and then used violence to keep all of its citizens docile. Many people draw parallels to that because they fear that if radical change were to take place in the United States after disarming its citizens people would be at the mercy of the government.
[QUOTE=Lobotmik;38909086]Have you stopped to consider WHY the United States hasn't had one? Maybe its a bit presumptuous to say its because we citizens own guns, but I imagine that if we were in fact to be invaded, that at least a decent portion of gun owners will join the fight in their localities.[/QUOTE] I would say the economic and military power of the United States rather. They've been a great power in the last century and this one so far.
[QUOTE=Lobotmik;38909086]Have you stopped to consider WHY the United States hasn't had one? Maybe its a bit presumptuous to say its because we citizens own guns, but I imagine that if we were in fact to be invaded, that at least a decent portion of gun owners will join the fight in their localities.[/QUOTE] lol because you only border 2 countries and there are fuckhuge oceans in the way for any other power
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38909329]lol because you only border 2 countries and there are fuckhuge oceans in the way for any other power[/QUOTE] Excuse me if I'm missing your point, but didn't oceans stop being a problem with the invention of aircraft?
[QUOTE=viper720666;38909377]Excuse me if I'm missing your point, but didn't oceans stop being a problem with the invention of aircraft?[/QUOTE] Aircraft didn't exist until the start of the 1900s. Even then, it took until the 1930s for them to become of any tangible use. Except they were limited in range and size. And you need aircraft carriers. Guess who has the biggest navy and airforce on earth? Really, establishing air superiority over the USA if you were say Russia is like Luxembourg trying to take over France.
[QUOTE=viper720666;38909377]Excuse me if I'm missing your point, but didn't oceans stop being a problem with the invention of aircraft?[/QUOTE]The oceans aren't the problem on their own, the armed forces (navy and airforce in particular) of the other side in combination are. The oceans just make it a hell of a lot easier for the other side to defend; sort of like trying to invade a country through land when the border is surrounded by a gigantic moat of treacle.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38909449] Really, establishing air superiority over the USA if you were say Russia is like Luxembourg trying to take over France.[/QUOTE] nuh uh man, I've played Victoria 2, I know what shit Luxembourg can pull
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38909449][B][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgolfier_brothers]Heavier-than-Air[/url][/B] Aircraft didn't exist until the start of the 1900s. Even then, it took until [B][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Gavotti]1911[/url][/B] for them to become of any tangible use. Except they were limited in range and size. And you need aircraft carriers. Guess who has the biggest navy and airforce on earth? Really, establishing air superiority over the USA if you were say Russia is like Luxembourg trying to take over France.[/QUOTE] Just some minor corrections.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;38911459]Just some minor corrections.[/QUOTE] Aircraft were used in WW1, but they were horribly crude and slow machinery that carried very tiny payloads. One of the first aerial battles literally had French pilots chucking bricks at German ones and using revolvers.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38911503]Aircraft were used in WW1, but they were horribly crude and slow machinery that carried very tiny payloads. One of the first aerial battles literally had French pilots chucking bricks at German ones and using revolvers.[/QUOTE] The first air-to-air takedown was purely by an Russian Pilot ramming his plane into another aircraft. In 1915, that all changed. Forward mounted[or top mounted] machine guns were put on scout planes to take down enemy recon/scout planes, and thus aerial warfare[in the form of heavier-than-air aircraft] was born. Even before that though, military aircraft has been used since the early 1700's and the first makeshift aircraft carriers were used in 1910/1911 by the US Navy: [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/First_airplane_takeoff_from_a_warship.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;38911568]The first air-to-air takedown was purely by an Russian Pilot ramming his plane into another aircraft. In 1915, that all changed. Forward mounted[or top mounted] machine guns were put on scout planes to take down enemy recon/scout planes, and thus aerial warfare[in the form of heavier-than-air aircraft] was born. Even before that though, military aircraft has been used since the early 1700's and the first makeshift aircraft carriers were used in 1910/1911 by the US Navy: [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/First_airplane_takeoff_from_a_warship.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] The value of aircraft in WW1 is often vastly overstated. Their main function was as observers, but balloons did it better. Bombing campaigns were largely ineffective and more a psychological tool than an effective weapon. The airplane wasn't an effective weapon of war on the same scale as an army or navy until less than a decade before WW2. Also, Sobotnik was correct in that early engagements in WW1 were conducted with personal weapons, bricks, or even chains intended to catch in the enemy's propeller. It wasn't until a Fokker E.I was captured and reverse-engineered by the British that the interrupter gear started to be fitted to all aircraft and machine guns fitted.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DPJYA8et4&list=UUtVC--6LR0ff2aOP8THpuEw&index=1[/media] I'm glad this legislation was written by someone who knows what they're talking about Got to get those dial down triggers off the streets
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38909449]Aircraft didn't exist until the start of the 1900s. Even then, it took until the 1930s for them to become of any tangible use. Except they were limited in range and size. And you need aircraft carriers. Guess who has the biggest navy and airforce on earth? Really, establishing air superiority over the USA if you were say Russia is like Luxembourg trying to take over France.[/QUOTE] We're not talking about 100 years ago. We're talking about now for as long as gun control has been a national topic. So probably for the last 40 years or so. There are a lot of reasons one would not directly invade the US, and the two that have nothing to do with our country involve demographic and geographic problems. Wide ownership of guns is a large factor, maybe not as large as the oceans, politics, and logistic parts, but certain countries do not have mandatory male military service and easily acquireable "house guns" for no reason. Also, your analysis of America's air power is accurate as of 2012, but it was not so reliably true during the cold war. All in all, this seems a bit off topic (not that there is anything horribly wrong about that), but this overbearing reason for gun possession by civilians is the same reason for which gun rights were included in the constitution.
Anyone on here who doesn't believe assault weapons should be banned are obviously sheeple from this dumb conspiracy theory site. [url]http://www.infowars.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=Mbbird;38912289]We're not talking about 100 years ago. We're talking about now for as long as gun control has been a national topic. So probably for the last 40 years or so. There are a lot of reasons one would not directly invade the US, and the two that have nothing to do with our country involve demographic and geographic problems. Wide ownership of guns is a large factor, maybe not as large as the oceans, politics, and logistic parts, but certain countries do not have mandatory male military service and easily acquireable "house guns" for no reason. Also, your analysis of America's air power is accurate as of 2012, but it was not so reliably true during the cold war. All in all, this seems a bit off topic (not that there is anything horribly wrong about that), but this overbearing reason for gun possession by civilians is the same reason for which gun rights were included in the constitution.[/QUOTE] In the modern day, I think that if the American airforce and navy were both demolished, then householders with guns wouldn't be able to stand up to whatever was coming their way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.