Mayor Predicts “Waco-Style Standoff” In Response to Obama Gun Confiscation - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39269898]Except the guy who made an AK out of that is a gunsmith and an experienced machinist. A person could make a sten out of basic materials, they'd still need to know basic gunsmithing and manufacturing, along with how to properly follow schematics, which most people would rather put aside and just buy a gun instead of dealing with it.[/QUOTE] I assume if you wanted to build a firearm you'd have to have some basic knowledge of firearms to build it.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270042]Fix'd :v: [/QUOTE] we get that the awb is ineffective when will you stop circlejerking?

Also, I'm not misinformed. I back up my claims with statistics, facts. Not everyone that disagrees with you is some pawn for the media or a sensationalist. If you want to talk about people buying into sensationalism, look at the people on the pro-gun side that repeat the "cold dead hands" line and threaten "A repeat of 1776" or "2nd civil war" if they come for their guns.

Of course Sobotnik rates me dumb

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270130]Of course Sobotnik rates me dumb[/QUOTE] You're making rash generalizations of %50 of the nation based on some idiots on the internet. I generally don't rate people dumb during debates but that really is a dumb generalization. There are well informed people on both sides, thats why this is such a divisive issue. Both sides can point to studies and statistics that support their opinions.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270128]Also, I'm not misinformed. I back up my claims with statistics, facts. Not everyone that disagrees with you is some pawn for the media or a sensationalist. If you want to talk about people buying into sensationalism, look at the people on the pro-gun side that repeat the "cold dead hands" line and threaten "A repeat of 1776" or "2nd civil war" if they come for their guns.[/QUOTE] Ok, ok. But we're backing up our claims with statistics and facts as well. And I didn't say everyone was a sensationalist, I was just saying that the recent influx in people supporting gun control was made up of those people. I realize the way I worded it gave the wrong idea.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39269956]Wow, I cannot seriously believe pro-gun people are rating this dumb. [/QUOTE] Quit getting your panties in a knot over ratings, they're just pixels below your post. Reacting because someone rated you dumb because they don't share the same opinion as you is just childish. Respond to their posts, not to them rating you something. I got rated dumb so many times for my opinion in a freedom of speech debate that someone spent money on a title for me, you don't see me crying about it. And I've said this several dozen times before, comparing firearms as a hobby to owning or detonating nuclear weapons, bombs, or chemical weapons is not a good comparison. You can take your rifle to a range and safely discharge, it's pretty tough to do the same with a nuclear weapon. It's also not quite so legal to collect nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BFG9000;39270130]Of course Sobotnik rates me dumb[/QUOTE] stop crying over fucking ratings

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39270174]Quit getting your panties in a knot over ratings, they're just pixels below your post. Reacting because someone rated you dumb because they don't share the same opinion as you is just childish. Respond to their posts, not to them rating you something. I got rated dumb so many times for my opinion in a freedom of speech debate that someone spent money on a title for me, you don't see me crying about it. And I've said this several dozen times before, comparing firearms as a hobby to owning or detonating nuclear weapons, bombs, or chemical weapons is not a good comparison. You can take your rifle to a range and safely discharge, it's pretty tough to do the same with a nuclear weapon. It's also not quite so legal to collect nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.[/QUOTE] It always bugs me when nuclear arms are brought up in gun debates. I mean why are nuclear arms illegal? We have the right to bear arms, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify which kind of arms! :v:

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270168]You're making rash generalizations of %50 of the nation based on some idiots on the internet. I generally don't rate people dumb during debates but that really is a dumb generalization. There are well informed people on both sides, thats why this is such a divisive issue. Both sides can point to studies and statistics that support their opinions.[/QUOTE] You don't understand, Sobotnik was NOT well informed last time I debated with him, he consistently acted like he knew what he was talking about and he earned himself a new title Although, we should probably stop talking about individual FPers [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] Damnit automerge

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270173]Ok, ok. But we're backing up our claims with statistics and facts as well. And I didn't say everyone was a sensationalist, I was just saying that the recent influx in people supporting gun control was made up of those people. I realize the way I worded it gave the wrong idea.[/QUOTE] You called me a sensationalist though I back up what I say with statistics.There are [b]plenty[/b] of people on the pro-gun side that are being sensationalist too. Both sides are at fault here.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270191]It always bugs me when nuclear arms are brought up in gun debates. I mean why are nuclear arms illegal? We have the right to bear arms, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify which kind of arms! :v:[/QUOTE] Normally I'd debate with you on this but I'm so sick of regurgitating the same answers to the same silly nuclear arms comparison over and over that I can't justify a response to it, sorry.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39270215]Normally I'd debate with you on this but I'm so sick of regurgitating the same answers to the same silly nuclear arms comparison over and over that I can't justify a response to it, sorry.[/QUOTE] You don't have to, it was just a joke mate.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270208]You called me a sensationalist though I back up what I say with statistics.There are [b]plenty[/b] of people on the pro-gun side that are being sensationalist too. Both sides are at fault here.[/QUOTE] Alright then, I understand how you feel. I'm just pretty sore about how it's had to come down to sensationalism, misinformation and mudslinging to promote one's political agenda And the worst part is, it's working (at least for the anti gun side)

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270233]Alright then, I understand how you feel. I'm just pretty sore about how it's had to come down to sensationalism, misinformation and mudslinging to promote one's political agenda And the worst part is, it's working (at least for the anti gun side)[/QUOTE] [b]It's happening on both sides.[/b] There are crazy amounts of sensationalism on both sides and it's downright disappointing.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39270174]Quit getting your panties in a knot over ratings, they're just pixels below your post. Reacting because someone rated you dumb because they don't share the same opinion as you is just childish. Respond to their posts, not to them rating you something. I got rated dumb so many times for my opinion in a freedom of speech debate that someone spent money on a title for me, you don't see me crying about it. [/QUOTE] Clearly it means someone disagrees, and it hurts more than helps our case when pro-gun people do their best to paint themselves as borderline psychopaths with comments along the lines of 'yeah, sucks that people die from guns, but it's my hobby so too bad don't tread on me'. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39270174]And I've said this several dozen times before, comparing firearms as a hobby to owning or detonating nuclear weapons, bombs, or chemical weapons is not a good comparison. You can take your rifle to a range and safely discharge, it's pretty tough to do the same with a nuclear weapon. It's also not quite so legal to collect nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.[/QUOTE] You can safely build and use a nuclear reactor. You can safely store/arrange/display/whatever chemical agents. But you can also mistreat them, deliberately or accidentally, and mistreatment can be deadly. You can safely use a firearm, and you can also mistreat them, and mistreatment can be deadly. Why do you suppose chemical weapons and nuclear materials are illegal for civilians in the first place? They're dangerous, and no amount of 'but it's my hobby!' will ever make it socially beneficial to allow their ownership, nor will it mitigate the risk they pose. Defending guns as a hobby is a dead end, because unless we can demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to own guns [I]beyond a hobby[/I], they'll be rendered just as illegal as the things I listed and for the same exact reason. Being usable as a hobby has never been sufficient opposition to banning of technology that presents a danger to the public. It just isn't good enough.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270256][b]It's happening on both sides.[/b] There are crazy amounts of sensationalism on both sides and it's downright disappointing.[/QUOTE] It's because the only people with any sort of voice in the actual government part of things are the extremists on both sides. You as an individual can have whatever opinion you want on guns, but when it comes to picking your representative, you're forced to pick between "ban every gun in existence" and "it should be illegal to not own an entire arsenal". It sickens me, really.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39270290]Clearly it means someone disagrees, and it hurts more than helps our case when pro-gun people do their best to paint themselves as borderline psychopaths with comments along the lines of 'yeah, sucks that people die from guns, but it's my hobby so too bad don't tread on me'. You can safely build and use a nuclear reactor. You can safely store/arrange/display/whatever chemical agents. But you can also mistreat them, deliberately or accidentally, and mistreatment can be deadly. You can safely use a firearm, and you can also mistreat them, and mistreatment can be deadly. Why do you suppose chemical weapons and nuclear materials are illegal for civilians in the first place? They're dangerous, and no amount of 'but it's my hobby!' will ever make it socially beneficial to allow their ownership, nor will it mitigate the risk they pose. Defending guns as a hobby is a dead end, because unless we can demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to own guns [I]beyond a hobby[/I], they'll be rendered just as illegal as the things I listed and for the same exact reason. Being usable as a hobby has never been sufficient opposition to banning of technology that presents a danger to the public. It just isn't good enough.[/QUOTE] But there are legitimate reasons to own guns beyond a hobby Self Defense Militia Hunting Professional competitions Sensitive Data Disposal Avalanche control Ranch safety (warding off predators and crap) etc etc [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] In other words, nice try.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270317]But there are legitimate reasons to own guns beyond a hobby Self Defense Militia Hunting Professional competitions Destruction of Sensitive Data Avalanche control[/QUOTE] So focus on [B]those[/B], which are legitimate, instead of the incredibly petty and worthless 'It's a hobby!' defense, like I said. If you go back and read my posts that was literally my point all along. The fact that firearms constitute a (very fun!) hobby should never be the go-to defense for gun ownership, especially when there are so many better arguments available.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39270340]So focus on [B]those[/B], which are legitimate, instead of the incredibly petty and worthless 'It's a hobby!' defense, like I said. If you go back and actually [i]read my posts[/i] that was literally my point.[/QUOTE] But I haven't been spamming the "hobby" argument, and I haven't seen it used extensively in this thread

[QUOTE=lavacano;39270299]It's because the only people with any sort of voice in the actual government part of things are the extremists on both sides. You as an individual can have whatever opinion you want on guns, but when it comes to picking your representative, you're forced to pick between "ban every gun in existence" and "it should be illegal to not own an entire arsenal". It sickens me, really.[/QUOTE] Is there anyone in the entire Congress (and if so, what proportion) that actually advocates either of those things? Because it sounds like you've pulled it right out of your ass.

And it's not incredibly petty and worthless; just because a few people broke the law doesn't mean that they should fuck shit up for everyone else [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] DAMNIT AUTOMERGE! [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;39270386]Is there anyone in the entire Congress (and if so, what proportion) that actually advocates either of those things? Because it sounds like you've pulled it right out of your ass.[/QUOTE] Well there's Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaigners...

[QUOTE=catbarf;39270290] Why do you suppose chemical weapons and nuclear materials are illegal for civilians in the first place? They're dangerous, and no amount of 'but it's my hobby!' will ever make it socially beneficial to allow their ownership, nor will it mitigate the risk they pose. Defending guns as a hobby is a dead end, because unless we can demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to own guns [I]beyond a hobby[/I], they'll be rendered just as illegal as the things I listed and for the same exact reason. Being usable as a hobby has never been sufficient opposition to banning of technology that presents a danger to the public. It just isn't good enough.[/QUOTE] Your arguement isn't a really a good one to make. You can make the same argument about swimming pools, they serve no legitimate purpose but there is a significant amount of people who die (mostly children) from swimming pools each year. [url]http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSafeSwimmingPool/[/url]

[QUOTE=Valnar;39270409]Your arguement isn't a really a good one to make. You can make the same argument about swimming pools, they serve no legitimate purpose but there is a significant amount of people who die (mostly children) from swimming pools each year. [url]http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSafeSwimmingPool/[/url][/QUOTE] "but swimming isn't just my hobby, it's my profession!" This is a great example of how taking away someone's hobby because a bunch of other people misused the tools for said hobby is dumb.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39270290]Clearly it means someone disagrees, and it hurts more than helps our case when pro-gun people do their best to paint themselves as borderline psychopaths with comments along the lines of 'yeah, sucks that people die from guns, but it's my hobby so too bad don't tread on me'. [/quote] They're ratings, get over it. Respond to their posts, not cry about their ratings. I'll agree, it's not helpful when we have people regurgitating that Charlston Heston line, or saying people will kill cops that try to take their guns, or pull a James Yeager and say he's going to start killing people if an AWB passes via an EO. They're just a classic case of a minority with too loud of a voice. [QUOTE=catbarf;39270290] You can safely build and use a nuclear reactor. You can safely store/arrange/display/whatever chemical agents. But you can also mistreat them, deliberately or accidentally, and mistreatment can be deadly. You can safely use a firearm, and you can also mistreat them, and mistreatment can be deadly. Why do you suppose chemical weapons and nuclear materials are illegal for civilians in the first place? They're dangerous, and no amount of 'but it's my hobby!' will ever make it socially beneficial to allow their ownership, nor will it mitigate the risk they pose. Defending guns as a hobby is a dead end, because unless we can demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to own guns [I]beyond a hobby[/I], they'll be rendered just as illegal as the things I listed and for the same exact reason. Being usable as a hobby has never been sufficient opposition to banning of technology that presents a danger to the public. It just isn't good enough.[/QUOTE] Like I said earlier, whether or not you can safely store a nuclear [b]weapon[/b] or a chemical weapon is irrelevant. You can't safely detonate one like you can safely discharge a firearm. They are not good comparisons. Even if you still somehow could collect a nuclear or chemical weapon, they're still illegal to own. I defend firearms as a hobby because it's my hobby. If my hobby were to be outlawed and I'm only able to use my firearms for defense, it would defeat the point of owning over half of the firearms I own.

Found an interesting pic [img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/486066_447179532018344_271102235_n.jpg[/img] Yea your little program is really working isn't it Feds

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270390]And it's not incredibly petty and worthless; just because a few people broke the law doesn't mean that they should fuck shit up for everyone else [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] DAMNIT AUTOMERGE! [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] Well there's Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaigners...[/QUOTE] None of them actually argue for that though because they know it wouldn't pass. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BFG9000;39270460]Found an interesting pic [img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/486066_447179532018344_271102235_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I'm failing to see how fast and furious is related to this, it was a scandal yes but it's really not relevant to the topic at hand.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270469] I'm failing to see how fast and furious is related to this, it was a scandal yes but it's really not relevant to the topic at hand.[/QUOTE] It's showing how the media is choosing which stories to give attention to.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39269948]enjoy your dead kids[/QUOTE] Wow, lemme guess. You're about, say, 15, white, and live in either a gated community or a neighborhood far from where criminals are present. Police in your area have adequate response times, and the crime in your area is at a relative low. You have no problems in your household, and everyone in your neighborhood has their own life to attend to.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39270491]It's showing how the media is choosing which stories to give attention to.[/QUOTE] Well of course, that's what the media does with everything. Theres a limited amount of air time and not every story gets aired, but the media really isn't the problem here.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270538]Well of course, that's what the media does with everything. Theres a limited amount of air time and not every story gets aired, but the media really isn't the problem here.[/QUOTE] It kind of is. They could have chosen to air things about the syrian rebels, or all sorts of things, but instead. They devoted weeks exclusively to the shootings, with tiny breaks for weather and their local stations to chime in.