Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37122218]I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.[/QUOTE] You should get that looked at, Revolver disease is pretty dangerous if it goes untreated.

Why would anyone need a sports car? They're unnecessarily fast and dangerous, we should outlaw them and have everyone stick to their priuses.

I still think it'd be fun to own a .22 rifle or 9mm pistol, just to bring to the range and maintain every once in a while.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;37122005]Lets ban cars, many people die from car accidents. Enjoy the benefits but you have to have the bad side-effects.[/QUOTE] terrible comparison an [I]accident[/I] with a car can hurt or kill, the [I]intended purpose[/I] of a gun is to hurt or kill

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37121434]Franklin expected the US to last a decade before a second revolution split the country again. His predictions sort of came true with the Civil War.[/QUOTE] New England wanted to secede hard from the 1790s up to the 1820s

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37121649]And we don't. Hell, we even change it (Amendments), but as far as the law goes, it is the supreme Law of the Land.[/QUOTE] I might be wrong but from what I can tell there hasn't been a firearms related amendment in over 300 years since the second amendment was enacted.

regardless of your laments, the US gov't won't do anything to ban guns nothin at all nothin at all nothin at all

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;37123752]terrible comparison an [I]accident[/I] with a car can hurt or kill, the [I]intended purpose[/I] of a gun is to hurt or kill[/QUOTE] They use this argument every time. It's been used every page in this thread. They refuse to accept they're wrong and this is a stupid comparison.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124006]They refuse to accept they're wrong[/QUOTE] Wow, because everyone wants to listen to [I]that[/I] argument.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124006]They use this argument every time. It's been used every page in this thread. They refuse to accept they're wrong and this is a stupid comparison.[/QUOTE] nothin at all

cause everyone knows banning stuff stops it right like how nobody commits crime ever or like how the prohibition totally made everyone stop drinking alcohol

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;37123752]terrible comparison an [I]accident[/I] with a car can hurt or kill, the [I]intended purpose[/I] of a gun is to hurt or kill[/QUOTE] The intended purpose of rat poison is to hurt or kill. The intended purpose of a longbow is to hurt or kill. The intended purpose of a handgun is to hurt or kill. All of these can be used to kill a person in an aggressive and deliberate manner, yet only one of the three is seen as scary and dangerous for a private citizen to own. There are many items designed expressly to hurt or kill which we have no qualms about. You can kill someone with pest control poison just as surely as with a handgun. While the intended purpose is to hurt or kill, that purpose [I]is not implicitly directed against human beings[/I]. There are many uses for firearms that don't involve killing other people- and even when they do, it can be for a justified purpose, like home defense. The intended purpose is a significant factor, but it alone is not a valid reason to oppose firearm ownership.

[QUOTE=Neat!;37123955]regardless of your laments, the US gov't won't do anything to ban guns nothin at all nothin at all nothin at all[/QUOTE] As great as that sounds to me, I can't bring myself to believe that. Just like what happened in England, it only takes one tragedy for politicians to rile up enough support to convince people they don't need certain freedoms. No, I don't think they'll outright ban guns in America, but they'll make it really hard to purchase them, and they'll tax ammunition to the point where it will be cheaper to fire wads of cash out of the barrel of a gun instead of bullets.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37121772][B]If you use .223 for deer then you'd need the 100 round mag just to take the deer down.[/B] .223 is a varmint and small game calibre, the minimum for deer is a heavy .243, and even then I wouldn't go lower than a .270. Even the army is pissed at the .223, because it doesn't kill well enough. Those who've been in long enough to remember the guns in .308 wish they could have them back because they'd actually put a person down.[/QUOTE] Thats funny, actually. [IMG]https://p.twimg.com/Aycd7wdCUAErfjN.jpg[/IMG] Colt H-Bar, Shoots .223. [IMG]http://puu.sh/Pvrt[/IMG]

As for being attacked on the street, it's all well and good to wax philosophy about how you should just hand over your money and have no reason to be afraid. Spend some time in a hostile, dangerous city, maybe get mugged yourself, and see how long that noble perspective lasts. The reality is that people get hurt or killed in these situations all the time and being willing to throw your wallet at someone the instant they ask politely and just hoping you come out unscathed is foolish. I'm not advocating everyone go out and buy a handgun and shoot everyone who looks at you funny, but it's not okay to insist that people not even try to defend themselves.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124006]They use this argument every time. It's been used every page in this thread. They refuse to [b]accept they're wrong[\b] and this is a stupid comparison.[/QUOTE] Maybe it'd help if you actually proved us wrong. I know that I have a good use for my assault weapon.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;37124358]As great as that sounds to me, I can't bring myself to believe that. Just like what happened in England, it only takes one tragedy for politicians to rile up enough support to convince people they don't need certain freedoms. No, I don't think they'll outright ban guns in America, but they'll make it really hard to purchase them, and they'll tax ammunition to the point where it will be cheaper to fire wads of cash out of the barrel of a gun instead of bullets.[/QUOTE] Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.

[QUOTE=markg06;37124455]Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.[/QUOTE] Oh really? Please tell me how many people owned guns before the ban a hundred years ago.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124538]Oh really? Please tell me how many people owned guns before the ban a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] He said barely, not a ton.

[QUOTE=markg06;37124455]Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.[/QUOTE] It used to be that every gentleman carried a pistol for protection in the UK, and many women too. The UK, like many countries, has a deep history of gun ownership that's been shat upon in recent years. It used to be that companies made pistols specifically for shoots at Bisley, now have fun getting a handgun in the UK.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37124551]He said barely, not a ton.[/QUOTE] So what's your point? He claimed he knows how many people owned guns a hundred years ago. Read posts a few times over before you make stupid irrelevant posts.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124622]So what's your point? He claimed he knows how many people owned guns a hundred years ago. Read posts a few times over before you make stupid irrelevant posts.[/QUOTE] No he didn't, he claimed that guns were far and few between before they even legislated gun control. He said nothing about numbers. Tell me, do your synapses fire in your brain?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37124632]No he didn't, he claimed that guns were far and few between before they even legislated gun control. He said nothing about numbers. Tell me, do your synapses fire in your brain?[/QUOTE] So you're saying it's perfectly OK to talk shit about things you don't know about? That's what he did.

I honestly do not see why people think assault rifles are more lethal than a handgun, shotgun, etc... In fact I'd go as far as saying a shotgun is more lethal because of some of the shells you can purchase online. If someone comes up to you and sticks a gun in your face it doesn't matter what type, caliber, or size, you honestly do not want any gun pointed at you. So what does banning assault rifles do? Currently the only arguments I have heard is that it limits a shooters ammo capacity and their ability to be accurate. Look at Virginia tech's massacre; he used a glock for many of the murders. With the argument of ammo capacity it would be just as easy to buy a tactical vest with molle pouches that can fit 4 standard 9mm pistol mags in a single puch. If you have four pouches that is 16 mags filled with ammunition, not counting one in the gun already. Sure it might take longer to reload but anyone who practices can reload a handgun in less than 2 seconds; there are specific training courses for it. In regards to the accuracy argument what people don't realize is the gun doesn't make the shooter more accurate, though it does help, a marksman is a marksman for a reason. It takes a lot to control recoil and keep your target in the sights regardless of the weapon you choose. Anyone can take a proper course to become proficient in multiple types of weapons, not just assault rifles. So in reality, banning assault rifles is essentially a cheap way to give people who are afraid of guns peace of mind because the big nasty AK-47 is no longer allowed to be purchased by your neighbor.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124622]So what's your point? He claimed he knows how many people owned guns a hundred years ago. Read posts a few times over before you make stupid irrelevant posts.[/QUOTE] He said, and I quote [quote]Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.[/quote] What he means by that is that there [I]were not[/I] many people who owned them, yet you jumped on him and demanded he show all the numbers, as if everyone and their dog had a gun. It's quite relevant.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124656]So you're saying it's perfectly OK to talk shit about things you don't know about? That's what he did.[/QUOTE] OK well do [I]you[/I] know how many people in the UK owned a firearm before they were regulated? Because I'm getting the vibe that you think you do, but you don't, and hence resort to being an asshole to try to enforce point dominance.

If you want to decrease the amount of firearms-related crimes, the LAST thing you do is go after the legitimate suppliers. If you do that first, not only does that leave innocent citizens defenseless, it gives criminals the motivation to commit more crimes because nobody can defend themselves anymore. No, instead of that, the first thing you do is give criminals less reasons to commit crimes. Most crimes are crimes of desperation, the criminal needs something that they, for some reason (usually poverty), cannot gain through legitimate means. If you decrease their need for these things, then they won't need to commit crimes, and therefore decreases their need to acquire firearms to aid in committing these crimes. That weakens the illegal gun suppliers (remember, most criminals don't acquire their weapons through legitimate means) to the point where they can be driven away so they can't sell any more guns. THAT'S when you start putting restrictions and shit on the legitimate suppliers, since civilians have less of a need to carry a gun for self-defense (since crime rates have lowered and now they feel safer). This will also prevent crazies like the Aurora Shooter who actually did purchase their guns legally. In a way, it's like internet piracy. You don't fight back by placing restrictions that only serve to hurt the innocent people while having no effect on the bad guys, you have to give the bad guys less of a reason to do the shit they do so they eventually stop doing that shit themselves. Unfortunately, to do all this would require a LOT of time and money, and nobody would be willing to pay, which is the worst thing about all this. Everyone wants things to be better, but they don't want to pay for it. They expect things to get better because they want it to get better without realizing how expensive and time-consuming it would be. And if they DO realize they'll immediately demand that a better, cheaper, quicker way is discovered, which is why people think that simply banning the sale of firearms will make everything better instantaneously. It doesn't work that way. Take a look at Washington, D.C. and you'll see why. Strictest firearms regulations in the country, highest firearms-related crime-rates in the country. Obviously something went wrong there.

Also why do people think that gunowners need more training before they can own a firearm? To me that just sounds silly, most people take training courses, and if I'm correct many states require some form of training first. Plus, don't you want a shooter to be as inefficient with a weapon as possible? Look at James Holmes, his rifle jammed and didn't know how to properly clear it which spared quite a few lives that might have otherwise been lost if he knew the few simple steps it takes to clear a jam. Unskilled gangbanging criminals handling weapons is scary, but I think I'd be even more afraid of a rampage killer who knew exactly what he was doing.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37124675]OK well do [I]you[/I] know how many people in the UK owned a firearm before they were regulated? Because I'm getting the vibe that you think you do, but you don't, and hence resort to being an asshole to try to enforce point dominance.[/QUOTE] [I]nobody[/I] knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say... "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;37119390]This is good news. Yall don't need assault rifles, and shouldn't be able to easily obtain one. If you really want guns to protect yourself, or for sport, or whatever (which I disagree with too), you don't need an assault rifle. They are literally just for killing heaps of people really easily.[/QUOTE] Did you not read the thread, or the OP? This bans "assault weapons", which is REALLY broad and sweeping- and doesn't actually ban actual assault weapons.