• US Supreme Court soon to decide on whether or not Assault Weapon Bans are Constitutional
    146 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;48920883]Tell that to the Mujahideen and they'll laugh you out of their country just like they did to the Soviets and the Coalition.[/QUOTE] You realize that the US gave them the latest hardware and training right? Also, using a group of people that came to founding a brutal regime is not helping your point. Our governments aren't about the people with the best guns ruling. Its the consensus of the people and the values of the people that vote, fill the uniforms and govern that keep us free. Most revolutions that end in democracy are peaceful. If anything, having well armed radicals is one of the greatest threats to freedom. Whats keeping you a democracy isn't the constant threat of militias rising up. Its the institutions and values of the people. I think its greatly ironic that organizations obsessed with preserving liberty through guns are the ones that are willing to sacrifice it in the name of national security, trying to control our culture by calling for the bans of offensive media and supporting the government spying on everybody. [QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;48921798]every time I read somebody going "you couldn't go against the government any way whats the point?????" I feel physically sorry for that individual like hello excuse me have you not noticed that we were at war in 2 countries with a fighting force of less (starting) capability than our civilian populace and they gave us hell[/QUOTE] This is a crazy fantasy. Its like Red Dawn but with your own government. Guns mean absolutely nothing. Japanese Americans in the US and minority groups in Nazi Germany were armed but still got rounded up into camps.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48921238]And? Yes, many, many fucking things have changed since the Constitution was written. Shit, the vast majority of those who signed it owned other human beings because they had a different skin color. [/QUOTE] Believe it or not, but most slave owners were probably better people than you are. I live in a country where my government runs guns to terrorists in the middle east, drug lords in the south and gangsters in the east. This is a government which is responsible for most of the world's drug and human trafficking. They're bombing hospitals and fighting against legitimate governments. They're fucking criminals, you ass, and you want everybody to drop their weapons and just trust that things will work out. :suicide: <----- (my suggestion for your next course of action) EDIT: Oh, and for you "Muh nukler bombs muh drones muh tanks!" faggots out there, do you really think that all the governments of the world are just going to kick back and watch the US kill it's own population indiscriminately? This is the most asinine argument, because only a special snowflake who never thought about it once could, and would make it. In any civil war, unless the US population turns to mass Satanism and human sacrifice, roving supermassive rape gangs and calling everybody they meet a fucking nigger, the world will side with the US population. The Government will have it's hands tied from day one, unless they want to be fighting a heavily armed populace AND the entire world's military might. FUCK YOU YOU STUPID CUNTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[QUOTE=butre;48921753]true, but the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle]Girandoni Air Rifle[/url] was a heavily fielded 20 shot repeating rifle used by the Holy Roman Empire. it was good out to 125 yards for around 30 shots before air pressure dropped to a point where effective range suffered. it was pretty accurate and could deal some heavy damage even to armored troops. At the time the Second Amendment was written, it was in limited service in the United States.[/QUOTE] "Used by the Holy Roman Empire" are you testing me satan? Also the Girandoni air rifle was expensive, fragile, difficult to use, and of limited use in warfare. The main weapon of choice until the middle of the 19th century was a bayonet with a musket attached. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=SaltyWaters;48923234]Believe it or not, but most slave owners were probably better people than you are.[/quote] Denying people their most basic human freedoms is probably several magnitudes worse than masturbating to Japanese cartoons. [quote]Oh, and for you "Muh nukler bombs muh drones muh tanks!" faggots out there, do you really think that all the governments of the world are just going to kick back and watch the US kill it's own population indiscriminately? This is the most asinine argument, because only a special snowflake who never thought about it once could, and would make it. In any civil war, unless the US population turns to mass Satanism and human sacrifice, roving supermassive rape gangs and calling everybody they meet a fucking nigger, the world will side with the US population. The Government will have it's hands tied from day one, unless they want to be fighting a heavily armed populace AND the entire world's military might. FUCK YOU YOU STUPID CUNTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE[/QUOTE] is this satire or just stupid?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48923254] Denying people their most basic human freedoms is probably several magnitudes worse than masturbating to Japanese cartoons. is this satire or just stupid?[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I forgot that if people saw tanks and fucking nuclear bombs going off in american population centers they would just be like "oh yeah fukkin cunts amirite?" I bet you have a small penis and that's why you are such a tasty little fucking snack i'll devour your soul you fucking little human piece of garbage I've seen entire worlds consumed by a singular organism I've seen the foolish decisions of species worth a hundred times what this miserable ball of dust has produced you are so fucking lucky to ever have been born here and have the protection you have because your smug apathy has been broadcasted out into the cosmos and every decent and kind species out there knows your name they all know as one because that's what a decent species develop they actually network their minds they don't build a fucking machine to do it for them but its all over now and soon you'll know what a piece of shit you are and hopefully you can grow from it but the memory will linger on recorded in the collective memory of all things. Forever. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible posts" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Saber15;48916921] [t]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mckjc1OHTw1r9khx4o1_1280.jpg[/t] This is legal.[/QUOTE] That's absolute fucking heresy.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48914037]Given that the second amendment blatantly exists to protect the private ownership of firearms for killing members of the militia, the answer is yes, it is unconstitutional. The supreme court is weird though, so I'm sure we'll get a pretty nasty split.[/QUOTE] But. Can't you guys like, change the constitution?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] the first amendment doesn't apply to anything beyond spoken word and the printing press, by this logic
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48923254]"Used by the Holy Roman Empire" are you testing me satan? Also the Girandoni air rifle was expensive, fragile, difficult to use, and of limited use in warfare. The main weapon of choice until the middle of the 19th century was a bayonet with a musket attached. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] Denying people their most basic human freedoms is probably several magnitudes worse than masturbating to Japanese cartoons. is this satire or just stupid?[/QUOTE] how many times throughout the years have I called you out on not making an argument? I know it's been a while [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=-n3o-;48923378]But. Can't you guys like, change the constitution?[/QUOTE] don't want to
[QUOTE=-n3o-;48923378]But. Can't you guys like, change the constitution?[/QUOTE] general rule of thumb is that the constitution can't be changed, but amendments can be added that override or change the context of previous amendments
[QUOTE=-n3o-;48923378]But. Can't you guys like, change the constitution?[/QUOTE] why would we want to change it? it's there for a good reason [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48921853] This is a crazy fantasy. Its like Red Dawn but with your own government. Guns mean absolutely nothing. Japanese Americans in the US and minority groups in Nazi Germany were armed but still got rounded up into camps.[/QUOTE] just how thick can you get [B]Nazi Germany is a famous example of how Hitler was sure to take arms away from the citizens before he started rounding people up[/B], you literally just proved my point also the Japanese Americans is a horrid example
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;48924570] just how thick can you get [B]Nazi Germany is a famous example of how Hitler was sure to take arms away from the citizens before he started rounding people up[/B], you literally just proved my point also the Japanese Americans is a horrid example[/QUOTE] Germany had a history of gun regulation well before Hitler rose to power. Nazi anti-gun laws were just a continuation of those under previous governments. Go sit in a corner for a failed Godwin's Law.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48924790]Germany had a history of gun regulation well before Hitler rose to power. Nazi anti-gun laws were just a continuation of those under previous governments. Go sit in a corner for a failed Godwin's Law.[/QUOTE] to be fair, the nazi government did enact harsher gun control measures against those determined to be "undesirable". conversely, they loosened restrictions for most other citizens
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48920873]Iunno about that, nuclear weapons are an unnecessary evil, and are largely in the control of idiots and incompetents who don't know what they're doing and what they're handling.[/QUOTE] Man, have a little more faith in them than that. When was the last time we had a nuclear war? You make it sound like they're always having nuclear accidents and routine tactical nuclear exchanges.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48920873]Iunno about that, nuclear weapons are an unnecessary evil, and are largely in the control of idiots and incompetents who don't know what they're doing and what they're handling.[/QUOTE] there has literally never been a single incident in the history of mankind where a nuclear bomb accidentally killed someone
[QUOTE=Judas;48924981]there has literally never been a single incident in the history of mankind where a nuclear bomb accidentally killed someone[/QUOTE] there have been plenty of accidental detonations, it's unreasonable to think that nobody has died as a direct or indirect result
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48914660]Full auto weapons are pretty common. Of course they're not used in major shootings all the time that hit the news, but in most of the dangerous cities, there are murders where a fully automatic weapon is used. But those murders never hit major news outlets, and stay purely local to the area or even state at the most.[/QUOTE] Those are illegally owned automatic weapons.
[QUOTE=Judas;48924981]there has literally never been a single incident in the history of mankind where a nuclear bomb accidentally killed someone[/QUOTE] How dare you disrespect the memory of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_%28film%29#Cancer_controversy"]John Wayne[/URL].
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48914660]Full auto weapons are pretty common. Of course they're not used in major shootings all the time that hit the news, but in most of the dangerous cities, there are murders where a fully automatic weapon is used. But those murders never hit major news outlets, and stay purely local to the area or even state at the most.[/QUOTE] there was a news report a few years ago where a CLEO in a major crime area (I think it was compton, but don't quote me on that) said he had never seen a semi auto converted to full auto in criminal hands in his 12 years of service.
[QUOTE=Judas;48924981]there has literally never been a single incident in the history of mankind where a nuclear bomb accidentally killed someone[/QUOTE] uh what all the commonwealth servicemen who died of leukemia from radiation exposure from british nuclear tests in australia (not to mention the abos who were probably dosed too)
[QUOTE=butre;48925143]there was a news report a few years ago where a CLEO in a major crime area (I think it was compton, but don't quote me on that) said he had never seen a semi auto converted to full auto in criminal hands in his 12 years of service.[/QUOTE] Converting a semi auto all will bill to full auto is very dangerous. Without a retarder to stop the hammer from dropping before the bolt is shut asks for an out of battery discharge. A lot if times the sears are only case hardened, so by grinding away material to make it full auto after a mag or two it leaves you with a broken gun that's only capable of runaway Fire.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;48924945]Man, have a little more faith in them than that. When was the last time we had a nuclear war? You make it sound like they're always having nuclear accidents and routine tactical nuclear exchanges.[/QUOTE] The staff placed in charge of nuclear bombs are usually the bottom of the barrel sorts who tend to cheat on their exams or fall asleep on guard duty (or get drunk, abuse drugs, etc). Not to mention that security in the warehouses with spare parts is poor, and the staff often idle and working on projects none of the politicians are willing to spend money on. Not to mention none of them have been tested in decades, the delivery systems are decrepit, the costs of maintenance are rising steadily, and the actual cost of modernizing nuclear stockpiles is seen as political suicide in an age of austerity. [QUOTE=Judas;48924981]there has literally never been a single incident in the history of mankind where a nuclear bomb accidentally killed someone[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents[/url] And these are just the ones we've heard about. No doubt that things are much worse than we've been led to believe when you can find dirty bombs on the Bulgarian black market.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48921853]You realize that the US gave them the latest hardware and training right?[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that a bunch of militia can, with access to military-grade hardware and military training, put up a serious fight against one of the strongest military forces on Earth. And this suggests that Second-Amendment-equipped, military-veteran-trained civilians couldn't pose a threat to our own military how, exactly?
Okay guys. The reason this case is a good thing, is because if it passes in favor of anti-AWB concepts, it'll force the current gun control narratives in this country to actually deal with the issues relating to things like handguns, which are considerably more used then your standard rifle. It also means that gun owners will no longer have to worry about people getting cosmetic features for weapons outlawed under the suspicion that somehow a handgrip changes your ability to shoot a gun. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48920872]holy shit I wonder if I made replica puckle guns with modern tacticool super operator double stranger danger features... would they sell?[/QUOTE] I suspect they would sell quiet well, I'm personally looking into remaking the Apache Revolver, but instead of using a cartridge/pinfire system, I plan on using flashpaper cartridges and an electric ignition system akin to [url=http://ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/plink_king/plink_king.html]this[/url]. You should actually look into using the same system for your Puckle, because it'd make reloading for it a bit easier as you'd just have to make some flashpowder cartridges or just load small charges of blackpowder, and not have to screw with flint or matchlock systems.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48921853]You realize that the US gave them the latest hardware and training right?[/QUOTE] I have yet to meet a fellow shipmate in the Navy who would be willing to fight against our own people. We swear an oath to our country (threats foreign and [B]domestic[/B]), not our government. The general populace would recieve very rapid training and a ton of equipment by the hands of defectors. In the Middle East, the people there will refuse to use the sights on their rifles because they believe god will guide their bullets into the enemy. A buddy of mine who used to train them told me that, it was a pain in the ass to train those people because they were so horridly uneducated. They know you put the bullets in the bang thing and pull the bang switch to create bangs. And how to make simple primers that can be attached to old soviet bombs. The American people in general aren't too bright, but they aren't [I]that[/I] stupid. They could very quickly be trained how to use firearms effectively. US Navy sailors are trained how to use the M92 pistol in 2 days. They could also step foot in a manufacturing plant of sorts and have all of the materials needed to create very nasty bombs. We were able to round up the Japanese because the Japanese just attacked us in Pearl Harbor, it didn't take much convincing. The American people are not a minority group, and even if some militia blew up a nursery you'd have a hard time convincing soldiers to put their sights on their own friends and family. As a serviceman, I want our people to be as armed as possible. They should be able to resist us. Keyword: Resist. If our people were disarmed, it would be easy to convince us to set up camps and roll into cities, as we wouldn't be afraid of people getting hurt on a large scale. But the people being armed tells us the people will make things bloody, and that keeps us in check. Which is a good fucking thing.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48926294]I suspect they would sell quiet well, I'm personally looking into remaking the Apache Revolver, but instead of using a cartridge/pinfire system, I plan on using flashpaper cartridges and an electric ignition system akin to [url=http://ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/plink_king/plink_king.html]this[/url]. You should actually look into using the same system for your Puckle, because it'd make reloading for it a bit easier as you'd just have to make some flashpowder cartridges or just load small charges of blackpowder, and not have to screw with flint or matchlock systems.[/QUOTE]I... am not sure if wasn't serious anymore, I don't know what to feel right now because this is the type of crazy shit that I like to do. It's also the reason why I'm missing an eyebrow right now because all the hair got burned off again. I think I'd need to keep the caliber below 12.7mm since a puckle gun isn't technically muzzleloading... I wonder what size shot they had originally.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48926625]I... am not sure if wasn't serious anymore, I don't know what to feel right now because this is the type of crazy shit that I like to do. It's also the reason why I'm missing an eyebrow right now because all the hair got burned off again. I think I'd need to keep the caliber below 12.7mm since a puckle gun isn't technically muzzleloading... I wonder what size shot they had originally.[/QUOTE] 32mm shot.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48926615]I have yet to meet a fellow shipmate in the Navy who would be willing to fight against our own people. We swear an oath to our country (threats foreign and [B]domestic[/B]), not our government. The general populace would recieve very rapid training and a ton of equipment by the hands of defectors[/QUOTE] Its as you stated. The American government would never wage war on its people because the soldiers would never allow it, not because they fear the American peoples rifles and handguns. I also doubt any politicians have any interest in doing that. [QUOTE=MaverickIB;48926615] We were able to round up the Japanese because the Japanese just attacked us in Pearl Harbor, it didn't take much convincing. The American people are not a minority group, and even if some militia blew up a nursery you'd have a hard time convincing soldiers to put their sights on their own friends and family. As a serviceman, I want our people to be as armed as possible. They should be able to resist us. Keyword: Resist. If our people were disarmed, it would be easy to convince us to set up camps and roll into cities, as we wouldn't be afraid of people getting hurt on a large scale. But the people being armed tells us the people will make things bloody, and that keeps us in check. Which is a good fucking thing.[/QUOTE] Having a segment of the population that would resort to violence is not something a democracy should have. In fact countries like that are more likely to be dictatorships. [QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;48924570] [B]Nazi Germany is a famous example of how Hitler was sure to take arms away from the citizens before he started rounding people up[/B], you literally just proved my point [/QUOTE] The notion that less than .5% of people could resist the most well armed and disciplined army in the world is ridiculous. My point is that the German people were armed and still didn't resist the death of their democracy and the establishment of the genocidal (they didn't know that part) dictatorship. Nazi Germany actually had less gun regulation than Weimar Germany and Occupied Germany.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48926615]I have yet to meet a fellow shipmate in the Navy who would be willing to fight against our own people. We swear an oath to our country (threats foreign and [B]domestic[/B]), not our government. The general populace would recieve very rapid training and a ton of equipment by the hands of defectors. In the Middle East, the people there will refuse to use the sights on their rifles because they believe god will guide their bullets into the enemy. A buddy of mine who used to train them told me that, it was a pain in the ass to train those people because they were so horridly uneducated. They know you put the bullets in the bang thing and pull the bang switch to create bangs. And how to make simple primers that can be attached to old soviet bombs. The American people in general aren't too bright, but they aren't [I]that[/I] stupid. They could very quickly be trained how to use firearms effectively. US Navy sailors are trained how to use the M92 pistol in 2 days. They could also step foot in a manufacturing plant of sorts and have all of the materials needed to create very nasty bombs. We were able to round up the Japanese because the Japanese just attacked us in Pearl Harbor, it didn't take much convincing. The American people are not a minority group, and even if some militia blew up a nursery you'd have a hard time convincing soldiers to put their sights on their own friends and family. As a serviceman, I want our people to be as armed as possible. They should be able to resist us. Keyword: Resist. If our people were disarmed, it would be easy to convince us to set up camps and roll into cities, as we wouldn't be afraid of people getting hurt on a large scale. But the people being armed tells us the people will make things bloody, and that keeps us in check. Which is a good fucking thing.[/QUOTE] What feasible action by the US government could cause the majority of the population to back overthrowing the government? It's not even remotely likely that the US government would attempt to attack it's population. The only event that might potentially kick off a revolution would be government attempts to disarm militias, and the majority of the US population would not see that as grounds to rebel. Hell, a lot of people would back disarming militias. So it's the American Revolution all over again, except probably with the levels of support reversed. 20-25% of the population (at best) for overthrowing the government, 40-45% actively supporting the government, everyone else just trying to stay the hell out of the way.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48928008]What feasible action by the US government could cause the majority of the population to back overthrowing the government?[/QUOTE] Even a [i]tenth of a percent[/i] of the American populace yields three hundred thousand armed insurgents, a number the military couldn't even begin to deal with on home soil. You don't need a majority of the population to wage an effective insurgency campaign. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have a substantial minority of the population supporting the insurgency, let alone a majority.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48928156]Even a [i]tenth of a percent[/i] of the American populace yields three hundred thousand armed insurgents, a number the military couldn't even begin to deal with on home soil. You don't need a majority of the population to wage an effective insurgency campaign. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have a substantial minority of the population supporting the insurgency, let alone a majority.[/QUOTE] Not arguing that it couldn't be done. I'm pointing out that any remotely feasible scenario whereby the US government is overthrown is a armed coup by relatively small percentage of the country against wishes of the majority of the population. Followed by intimidation/suppression of the general population in order to keep power, particularly targeted at those who actively opposed the coup, leading to a mass exodus from the country. Like I said, it's the American Revolution all over again (just a slightly more extreme version)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.