[QUOTE=turd dad;43992917]The purpose isn't to put federal agents in jail, it's to deter federal agents from enforcing illegal laws in the first place.[/QUOTE]
"illegal"
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43994613]an unconstitutional one. A gunban would infringe on 2nd amendment rights.[/QUOTE]
"well regulated militia" != "HURR DURR LETS GO GET US SUM GOSH DERN GUNS BILLY BOB THE TAX MAN'S GONNA COME AND TAKE AWAY MAH RIGHTS TO BREED WITH MAH SISTER AN' CHEW TABACCA"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44002714]"well regulated militia" != "HURR DURR LETS GO GET US SUM GOSH DERN GUNS BILLY BOB THE TAX MAN'S GONNA COME AND TAKE AWAY MAH RIGHTS TO BREED WITH MAH SISTER AN' CHEW TABACCA"[/QUOTE]
liberal tears
[QUOTE=SomeENG;43996241]Have you ever even fired a full auto firearm? It's shit compared to semi in regards to everything but "lol factor"[/QUOTE]
Yes, I was in the army. Bullets don't care if the operator is inexperienced or wasteful. If you are intending to cause mass damage in a short amount of time, it's hard to beat full auto. You seem to be under the impression that bullets fired from a gun that is being used inefficiently somehow magically lose their ability to kill somebody. Your accuracy may go down and your reserves might drop more quickly, but enough bullets in the air makes "lucky shots" a lot more likely. You don't have to be a tactical badass with awesome burst control and sweet accessories to spray into a crowd. People still die from children with shitty AK's in Africa every day.
I get what's trying to be argued here, but it's silly. How delusional do you have to be to honestly believe that we'd be better off if spree-minded shooters had fully automatic weapons instead of semi-automatics?
Again, they cost an insane amount, and background checks are extensive and take months. Hell, I bet they're still thousands of dollars even if purchased illegally, which is why it hardly happens.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44004429]Again, they cost an insane amount, and background checks are extensive and take months. Hell, I bet they're still thousands of dollars even if purchased illegally, which is why it hardly happens.[/QUOTE]
What's your point? It ain't like somebody contemplating the kind of malevolence that an assault rifle excels at is going to see a stiff price tag on his killing spree weapon of choice and go, "well, I really oughta be pragmatic..."
Maybe they can't afford it, and usually people that commit mass shootings simply take them from family or friends, I don't know why you think we should ban something that results in less than 1% of deaths. I think we need to reevaluate our mental healthcare and make purchasing handguns much harder. "feel good" bans do jack shit.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44004271]Yes, I was in the army. Bullets don't care if the operator is inexperienced or wasteful. If you are intending to cause mass damage in a short amount of time, it's hard to beat full auto. You seem to be under the impression that bullets fired from a gun that is being used inefficiently somehow magically lose their ability to kill somebody. Your accuracy may go down and your reserves might drop more quickly, but enough bullets in the air makes "lucky shots" a lot more likely. You don't have to be a tactical badass with awesome burst control and sweet accessories to spray into a crowd. People still die from children with shitty AK's in Africa every day.
I get what's trying to be argued here, but it's silly. How delusional do you have to be to honestly believe that we'd be better off if spree-minded shooters had fully automatic weapons instead of semi-automatics?[/QUOTE]
I remain surprised that so few spree shooters seem to employ shotguns.
Can you imagine a Saiga 12 gauge in a spree shooting? That shit would be worse than just about anything short of a belt fed machine gun.
Rifle rounds are considerably more capable of bringing about your demise than handgun rounds, but buckshot makes them both look like child's play at the ranges you'd see inside of a building, and the amount of marksmanship necessary is significantly reduced.
Range increases? Swap to a magazine with slugs or darts. Those will be useful out to basically any range the police are willing to engage at short of police marksmen.
For the most part I'd guess full auto would be worse than semi auto, but I'm guessing shotgun users are probably an exception. Even with a tube magazine, instead of a detachable box, I'd still bet on the shotgun fucker killing more folks.
[editline]22nd February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44002714]"well regulated militia" != "HURR DURR LETS GO GET US SUM GOSH DERN GUNS BILLY BOB THE TAX MAN'S GONNA COME AND TAKE AWAY MAH RIGHTS TO BREED WITH MAH SISTER AN' CHEW TABACCA"[/QUOTE]
The second amendment was put in place to counter the well regulated militia. The militia is explicitly stated as being a government entity in service to the federal government. The second amendment is about protecting the rights of the people as individuals. Why would the government tell the government that it can't disarm itself.
The militia was considered a necessary evil for the protection of the state, and the second amendment is considered to be the counter to that necessary evil.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44004443]What's your point? It ain't like somebody contemplating the kind of malevolence that an assault rifle excels at is going to see a stiff price tag on his killing spree weapon of choice and go, "well, I really oughta be pragmatic..."[/QUOTE]
it's not really an issue of cost, but more of one of time and effort. To get the proper licensing to own and transfer class III firearms takes upwards of years and quite a lot of money too. Once all thats done you have to actually track down a class III automatic that someone is willing to sell to you. If this imaginary spree-shooter is trying to prepare for everything legally (for whatever reason), he'd really just be better off purchasing a semiautomatic for much cheaper and with much less time and effort involved.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;43997199]I know plenty of people who hunt deer with .44s.[/QUOTE]
They probably shouldn't. Rifles have longer range, better accuracy, higher velocity and more stopping power. Shotguns have a high degree of stopping power and a small chance to miss. They are quite often cheaper weapons, too. People probably shouldn't be shooting bucks with .44 handguns when there are a shwap of long guns miles better at doing the job.
It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world for hunting if handguns got tighter restrictions.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44004832]it's not really an issue of cost, but more of one of time and effort. To get the proper licensing to own and transfer class III firearms takes upwards of years and quite a lot of money too. Once all thats done you have to actually track down a class III automatic that someone is willing to sell to you. If this imaginary spree-shooter is trying to prepare for everything legally (for whatever reason), he'd really just be better off purchasing a semiautomatic for much cheaper and with much less time and effort involved.[/QUOTE]
Class 3 is only for selling.
A tax stamp is all that is needed for full auto.
Hell even frag grenades only require a tax stamp.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;43992948]They usually do, but sometimes the federal government simply allows them to keep them (e.g. legalizing pot while its still illegal on the federal level)[/QUOTE]
As far as I know the main difference is on the focus of the laws.
a) laws that create an obligation to something (better background checks as an example) are kinda impossible to overrule
b) laws that ban something, can be, depending on the thing that was banned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
