[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43995239]Oh, whatever, this isn't going anywhere. It's just pandering to the dumb, gun-obsessed Missouri hicks that vote for these people. The kind of people that after 6 years still think Obama's federal goons are comin' to take they guns away any day now.[/QUOTE]
You're right in a way, but it's important to have these protections in place.
These laws are just symbolic. They really aren't meant to be used as everyone knows the Supremacy clause in the US Constitution would cause the courts to throw them out. Its just meant to say to the federal government that the state doesn't support what they're doing.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43995267]What the hell? Since when is Missouri a State?[/QUOTE]
Since 1821 apparently
For fucks sake, guys. I didn't say people SHOULDN'T be allowed to own an assault weapon. I was asking what the need for one was. Now that you've answered my question, I know.
Jesus Christ, guys.
[QUOTE=Chubbles;43995497]For fucks sake, guys. I didn't say people SHOULDN'T be allowed to own an assault weapon. I was asking what the need for one was. Now that you've answered my question, I know.
Jesus Christ, guys.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. That question is posed as an argument more than a legitimate question. It triggers flashbacks for us :(
[QUOTE=teh pirate;43995587]It triggers flashbacks for us :([/QUOTE]
Back to the time when prices were so jacked, they looked like bodybuilders
[QUOTE=zombini;43993020]If it didn't have the "arrest federal agents" part, it'd be a not so horrible act. Banning automatics and suppressors is a waste of time, since neither are that handy for crime and both are extremely expensive; a decent 9mm suppressor can cost more than the handgun it's being attached to, before taxes. If anything, a person using an automatic would be a better thing, the vast majority of people spray n pray, so an attacker would eat up all of his ammo right away. If this gets rid of background checks and allows pretty much everyone to buy a gun though, then i say it needs to die.[/QUOTE]
I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you arguing that it's better for criminals to have fully automatic weapons simply because they use ammunition more quickly? That's a very silly argument, because that used ammunition is going downrange, and the people it could be entering don't give much of a fuck about whether or not the weapon is being fired in a tactically efficient way.
Those Kenyan mall shooters last year weren't exactly SWAT specialists, but their "spray and pray" still managed to kill at least 39 people, and wound over 150 more. Automatic weapons make it easier for shooters to kill. They have more bullets, and they fire them more quickly, allowing them to kill more people, faster. "Spray and pray" doesn't make bullets any less lethal, especially if you have enough ammunition to keep feeding the gun.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43995678]I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you arguing that it's better for criminals to have fully automatic weapons simply because they use ammunition more quickly? That's a very silly argument, because that used ammunition is going downrange, and the people it could be entering don't give much of a fuck about whether or not the weapon is being fired in a tactically efficient way.
Those Kenyan mall shooters last year weren't exactly SWAT specialists, but their "spray and pray" still managed to kill at least 39 people, and wound over 150 more. Automatic weapons make it easier for shooters to kill. They have more bullets, and they fire them more quickly, allowing them to kill more people, faster. "Spray and pray" doesn't make bullets any less lethal, especially if you have enough ammunition to keep feeding the gun.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever even fired a full auto firearm? It's shit compared to semi in regards to everything but "lol factor"
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43995678]I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you arguing that it's better for criminals to have fully automatic weapons simply because they use ammunition more quickly? That's a very silly argument, because that used ammunition is going downrange, and the people it could be entering don't give much of a fuck about whether or not the weapon is being fired in a tactically efficient way.
Those Kenyan mall shooters last year weren't exactly SWAT specialists, but their "spray and pray" still managed to kill at least 39 people, and wound over 150 more. Automatic weapons make it easier for shooters to kill. They have more bullets, and they fire them more quickly, allowing them to kill more people, faster. "Spray and pray" doesn't make bullets any less lethal, especially if you have enough ammunition to keep feeding the gun.[/QUOTE]
The amount of rounds going downrange may increase, causing a higher fear factor, but the hit rate is gonna drop right away. That Kenyan mall assault were firing into big groups of people and were probably smart enough to fire in bursts to conserve ammo. Full auto weapons burn their ammo very quickly, somewhere along the lines of 700-1000 R/m, making a single magazine last only a few seconds.
Long story short, an automatic rifle makes for a really shitty weapon for crime, you'd burn your ammo out long before you'd get as many people as you would with a semi-automatic.
[QUOTE=zombini;43996383]The amount of rounds going downrange may increase, causing a higher fear factor, but the hit rate is gonna drop right away. That Kenyan mall assault were firing into big groups of people and were probably smart enough to fire in bursts to conserve ammo. Full auto weapons burn their ammo very quickly, somewhere along the lines of 700-1000 R/m, making a single magazine last only a few seconds.
Long story short, an automatic rifle makes for a really shitty weapon for crime, you'd burn your ammo out long before you'd get as many people as you would with a semi-automatic.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't a guy who's willing to do that bring a lot of ammo anyways
Honestly, a full auto firearm I could imagine being an versatile street weapon is the American 180:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rfJy4exPFE[/media]
A firearm like this is actually incredibly controllable, and even with spray and pray, you are doing some very serious damage.
Here's the thing though, we have hardly seen any murders committed with full auto firearms thanks to NFA 34. Even before the Hughes Amendment was enacted we only saw two murders occur with FA's, and that shouldn't of been enough to even reason for outright removal of full-autos after 1986.
Rifles and Shotguns are both hardly ever used for crime, it's usually about 84% of the time handguns. That's your problem child, not rifles, not shotguns, not fully automatic weapons, but handguns. I won't personally push any gun owner group under the bus, but we need more laws regarding the ownership of handguns, and a complete rewrite of the current National Firearm Act.
Rifles have actual utility and it can be argued they have a place under the guise of national defense (foreign or domestic assault, I'm not making an argument on this point.) Handguns serve no purpose other than to be easily concealable, no one is going to hunt with a handgun, no one is going to defend their country with only a handgun. Handguns, while good self defense weapons, are used in over 85% of violent crimes involving a firearm. (This was an FBI statistic in 2010 (year may or may not be correct.))
It would make sense to have more strict regulations on the thing that is used in a overwhelming majority of crimes.
It would be like banning the sale and ownership of pocket knives and steak knives because automatic switch blades are illegal. They are two different classifications of knife, the only thing they have in common is the fact that they're knives.
[QUOTE=draugur;43996929]Rifles have actual utility and it can be argued they have a place under the guise of national defense[/QUOTE]
Yes but only if you have the prerequisite brain damage
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43996950]Yes but only if you have the prerequisite brain damage[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing though... In [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller]United States v. Miller[/url], the US Supreme Court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment protects the ownership of firearms that could be used within military service. Now last time I checked just about any firearm could be used to a certain degree within the military, but if we are going under the guess of, "Firearm that the military uses" things like the AR-15 are exactly that. Firearms that are modeled after military weapons. Outlawing them is indeed unconstitutional, and goes against the decision of several Supreme Court cases.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43997060]Outlawing them is indeed unconstitutional, and goes against the decision of several Supreme Court cases.[/QUOTE]
Okay uh thanks for the lesson in Constitutional Law (Something I [I]very highly[/I] respect) but I was just "crackin' wise" about people who seriously think their private firearms could help them overthrow a tyranny or fight off a professional, well-trained military force
Sorry dude I'll make jokes more obvious from now on so as to prevent irrelevant discussions on an outdated and pathetic constitution
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43997110]Okay uh thanks for the lesson in Constitutional Law (Something I [I]very highly[/I] respect) but I was just "crackin' wise" about people who seriously think their private firearms could help them overthrow a tyranny or fight off a professional, well-trained military force
Sorry dude I'll make jokes more obvious from now on so as to prevent irrelevant discussions on an outdated and pathetic constitution[/QUOTE]
But I like when jokes are subtle :v:
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;43996641]Wouldn't a guy who's willing to do that bring a lot of ammo anyways[/QUOTE]
You can only carry so much ammo, a US army combat chest rig only has room for 6 mags, that's about 150 rounds, so you'd only have 150 readily available, you could carry loads of ammo, but there's a point where it becomes a burden rather than a benefit.
-ech not really the time and place for Facepunch social commentary-
ps the constitution sucks wieners
-snip, yeah good point-
also we need moar guns obviously, you evil red canadian
[QUOTE=draugur;43996929]Rifles have actual utility and it can be argued they have a place under the guise of national defense (foreign or domestic assault, I'm not making an argument on this point.) Handguns serve no purpose other than to be easily concealable, no one is going to hunt with a handgun, no one is going to defend their country with only a handgun. Handguns, while good self defense weapons, are used in over 85% of violent crimes involving a firearm. (This was an FBI statistic in 2010 (year may or may not be correct.))
It would make sense to have more strict regulations on the thing that is used in a overwhelming majority of crimes.
It would be like banning the sale and ownership of pocket knives and steak knives because automatic switch blades are illegal. They are two different classifications of knife, the only thing they have in common is the fact that they're knives.[/QUOTE]
People hunt with handguns all the time. What are you smoking?
I know plenty of people who hunt deer with .44s.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;43997199]People hunt with handguns all the time. What are you smoking?
I know plenty of people who hunt deer with .44s.[/QUOTE]
I know plenty of people that want to own or do own desert eagles. Doesn't make it any more logical. Rifles are the superior hunting tool, why would you hunt with an inferior tool?
the government can't take our guns if we arrest it
There is something funny about states passing unconstitutional legislation meant to combat possible future federal legislation with the reasoning be that the federal legislation we haven't seen yet is obviously going to be unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=draugur;43996929]Rifles have actual utility and it can be argued they have a place under the guise of national defense (foreign or domestic assault, I'm not making an argument on this point.) Handguns serve no purpose other than to be easily concealable, no one is going to hunt with a handgun, no one is going to defend their country with only a handgun. Handguns, while good self defense weapons, are used in over 85% of violent crimes involving a firearm. (This was an FBI statistic in 2010 (year may or may not be correct.))
It would make sense to have more strict regulations on the thing that is used in a overwhelming majority of crimes.
It would be like banning the sale and ownership of pocket knives and steak knives because automatic switch blades are illegal. They are two different classifications of knife, the only thing they have in common is the fact that they're knives.[/QUOTE]
This post reminded me of a video I saw involving a guy bringing up that fact to Piers Morgan, and all Piers does is try to ignore it while getting soundbites in.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM[/media]
I just dropped out of college so I can become a police officer and arrest all of these no good federal agents
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;43993029]you could apply this logic to literally any possession crime[/QUOTE]
which is why possession crimes of most things (drugs) is bullshit
(weapons are a bit different since they are more dangerous to others)
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43995678]I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you arguing that it's better for criminals to have fully automatic weapons simply because they use ammunition more quickly? That's a very silly argument, because that used ammunition is going downrange, and the people it could be entering don't give much of a fuck about whether or not the weapon is being fired in a tactically efficient way.
Those Kenyan mall shooters last year weren't exactly SWAT specialists, but their "spray and pray" still managed to kill at least 39 people, and wound over 150 more. Automatic weapons make it easier for shooters to kill. They have more bullets, and they fire them more quickly, allowing them to kill more people, faster. "Spray and pray" doesn't make bullets any less lethal, especially if you have enough ammunition to keep feeding the gun.[/QUOTE]
Violent crimes with fully automatic weapons are insanely rare, how about we focus on better background checks for pistols which account for most gun deaths, and mandatory gun courses in general.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43997110]Okay uh thanks for the lesson in Constitutional Law (Something I [I]very highly[/I] respect) but I was just "crackin' wise" about people who seriously think their private firearms could help them overthrow a tyranny or fight off a professional, well-trained military force
[/QUOTE]
Ukraine seems to be doing very well despite their lack of firearms.
for the argument of "well why do you need x kind of gun? you don't need it."
well I don't need 500hp either but I sure do like having a sports car. just because I don't [I]need[/I] it doesn't mean i don't [I]want[/I] it.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;44001878]Ukraine seems to be doing very well despite their lack of firearms.[/QUOTE]
yeah so instead of just shooting government oppressors they're just setting them on fire with molotov cocktails. I bet everyone involved is just having a blast
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
