Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

2013-01-23 12:49:23

#1851

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4277

-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny.

are you going to answer my question? i just spent two pages probing why exactly an AR is necessary "in the event of a tyranny".

as i said in my very first post: that clause of the constitution was written at a time when a level playing-field, technologically, was conceivable.

now it is not.

having assault rifles as a 'right against tyranny' is a quaint archaism at best, and a frivolous hobby that happens to facilitate school massacres at worst.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-23 12:49:41)

2013-01-23 12:49:31

#1852

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5381|London, England

Pochsy wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes, a .45 is better, but you can still get the job done with an AR if need be. So yeah we don't need assault rifles for self-defense but who is anybody to say we can't pick what we'd prefer?
Argument over. Point conceded. Let's move this shit over to "why the constitution is outdated." Mac, do it trivia style. I could use the laugh.

Not everyone lives in urban environments you know...

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-01-23 13:03:43

#1853

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6794|PNW

-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny.₁ There's no reason a person can't have an AR.₂ It's fun to shoot.₃

₁What were the Kennedy brothers shot with?
₂That's an all-encompassing remark...
₃Is that your great defense? "It's fun to shoot."

2013-01-23 13:10:26

#1854

Mutantbear: Semi Constructive Criticism; +1,431|5987|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny.
are you going to answer my question? i just spent two pages probing why exactly an AR is necessary "in the event of a tyranny".

as i said in my very first post: that clause of the constitution was written at a time when a level playing-field, technologically, was conceivable.

now it is not.

having assault rifles as a 'right against tyranny' is a quaint archaism at best, and a frivolous hobby that happens to facilitate school massacres at worst.

hes not going to. Hes said multiple times that he cant put his feelings into words so instead of not debating he just opts to not explain

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2013-01-23 13:29:58

#1855

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5566|Toronto

Jay wrote:
Pochsy wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes, a .45 is better, but you can still get the job done with an AR if need be. So yeah we don't need assault rifles for self-defense but who is anybody to say we can't pick what we'd prefer?
Argument over. Point conceded. Let's move this shit over to "why the constitution is outdated." Mac, do it trivia style. I could use the laugh.
Not everyone lives in urban environments you know...

I fail to see what this adds. At all.

Have you read the prior 5 pages? If you want to defend yourself, your only chance is to not look like you're the enemy, to use surprise, and to potentially get creative in your delivery. Plant heels and fire is going nowhere against the largest and most advanced military in the world. See: entire Vietnam War.

Beyond this, the country would be the easiest place to decimate an idiot with a rifle. There's no collateral! Drop a missile, use a sniper rifle, send a drone. You're smart move is to have them not think you're against them, wait for them to show up at your door if they think you are safe, and do whatever you need to up close. you can't win the range game OR the firepower game.

If we're talking defend ur property from the miscreants who want to take a shit on it's edge, well. You should not ask whats happening? You should not consider diplomacy? Just hope your rifle has range that his doesn't, right? Here is where the real debate about the value of a Constitution written 200 years ago comes into play. This is the true debate. An update sounds like a good idea. The arms race would appear to not be working out so well.

Last edited by Pochsy (2013-01-23 13:31:03)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2013-01-23 14:06:26

#1856

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6681|BC, Canada

Wolverines!

2013-01-23 14:36:34

#1857

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6022|...

Because some idiots are still going on about the second amendment providing a means to the people to protect themselves from government oppression, I'll just quote this piece. In fact I believe I may have quoted it in its entirity before in this topic but it got ignored and swamped by accusations of pretentiousness by one particular mouthbreather who happens to dislike the author for no reason really. So, without further ado:

The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans--even Tibetans--could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three--ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon--or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting--not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.

I'd also like to emphasize on Uzi's point of tyranny more often than not having popular support as it is established. If tyranny were to come to the US, it will not be the result of some grand battle royale of good vs evil. It will be because you, the public, voted for it and allowed it in.

inane little opines

2013-01-23 14:42:11

#1858

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5201|Sydney

-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.

Don't forget to always wear your tin foil hat!

2013-01-23 14:58:41

#1859

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6655|949

-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.

Drop the tryanny bullshit. It makes you sound dumb. They are fun to shoot - that should be reason enough to let them be legal. But you should have to demonstrate the ability to be responsible with them to be able to have one in your house.

2013-01-23 15:01:42

#1860

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,053|6645|Little Bentcock

-Sh1fty- wrote:
My arguments are similar to a lot of people here. I just don't express myself as eloquently or as correctly as they do. Ya'll just target me because it's easy, which makes you pretty pathetic in retrospect. Bandwagon time!

Or maybe because their arguments are just as bad and we don't agree with them either. You aren't a special case, though you do make it easy.

2013-01-23 15:13:05

#1861

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5566|Toronto

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.
They are fun to shoot - that should be reason enough to let them be legal. .

Fireworks are fun. Why are they regulated and illegal in some states?

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2013-01-23 15:22:57

#1862

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6655|949

Pochsy wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.
They are fun to shoot - that should be reason enough to let them be legal. .
Fireworks are fun. Why are they regulated and illegal in some states?

There's no federal ban on fireworks. Fireworks aren't explicitly allowed under the constitution. Fireworks have the ability to cause widespread destruction. I think you know this. I think you also know I am in favor of regulation of firearms.

2013-01-23 16:36:44

#1863

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5496|Ventura, California

Pochsy wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.
They are fun to shoot - that should be reason enough to let them be legal. .
Fireworks are fun. Why are they regulated and illegal in some states?

Fire problems for one.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2013-01-23 17:06:12

#1864

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5201|Sydney

That's about the worst argument ever.

2013-01-23 17:46:33

#1865

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5608

Last fourth of July I saw a 4 year old Mexican girl get hit with a rocket firework. I called the police and I read that someone was arrested for it in the paper.

2013-01-23 17:47:32

#1866

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,053|6645|Little Bentcock

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Pochsy wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

They are fun to shoot - that should be reason enough to let them be legal. .
Fireworks are fun. Why are they regulated and illegal in some states?
Fire problems for one.

Dead people is a pretty good one.

2013-01-23 17:49:14

#1867

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5566|Toronto

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Pochsy wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
They are fun to shoot - that should be reason enough to let them be legal. .
Fireworks are fun. Why are they regulated and illegal in some states?
Fire problems for one.

The point of the comparison was not to show how great fireworks are. It was to get you to think about how certain things become acceptable. They're pretty much the same in terms of danger (both can kill a person), are both considered fun, and are both deserving of restriction and regulation. The difference is, the argument for semi-automatic guns rests almost entirely on the Constitution. Now, that isn't to say that if taken to a vote the majority of people would actually opt to regulate semi-automatic rifles. Which is fine. But it can't even get to a vote, because the Constitution is interpreted as the high arbiter of all things desirable despite being written 200 years ago. Just its deification persuades people that semi-autos must be right. It's the law creating consensus, not the other way around.

Last edited by Pochsy (2013-01-23 17:58:26)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2013-01-23 17:58:52

#1868

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5381|London, England

So your problem is with semi-automatics? Really? Weird. Would you ban revolvers and old weapons like the Sharps Carbine as well even though they have similar rates of fire? How silly. Even the Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle achieved rates of fire of 28 rounds per minute, which is why it was used by the British army for like fifty years.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-01-23 18:15:31

#1869

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5566|Toronto

Jay wrote:
So your problem is with semi-automatics? Really? Weird. Would you ban revolvers and old weapons like the Sharps Carbine as well even though they have similar rates of fire? How silly. Even the Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle achieved rates of fire of 28 rounds per minute, which is why it was used by the British army for like fifty years.

Jay, you have a very short memory. And my own is nothing to brag about.

The difference is that a pistol doesn't have the same power as a semi-auto rifle. You can't snub 20 people at 500 yards in a single clip with a pistol. This argument was between you and Dilbert. I like the Lee-Enfield data, it really helped your point along. A semi-auto easily does 100 rounds per minute, including the reload, even if you're inexperienced. Different leagues entirely.

Here's a dude doing it without the reload, but I hope we can agree that it is not comparable to 28rpm:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2WDAIN-Onc0

Sorry, it's an embed.

Last edited by Pochsy (2013-01-23 18:17:29)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2013-01-23 18:23:50

#1870

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5381|London, England

The only people I can think of that used a weapon at long range to pick off people were the Beltway Sniper and the guy up in the clocktower at the University of Texas back in the 60s. The latter used a bolt action rifle and killed 14 people while wounding 32, the former killed 10 and wounded 3 with a bipod mounted AR-15. Two cases. Hardly an epidemic, and hardly a reason to demonize and ban semi-automatic rifles.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-01-23 18:33:06

#1871

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5566|Toronto

...the numbers I pulled out of my ass of "20 people at 500 yards" were not meant to be the qualifier for what constitutes the identifiable range advantage of a rifle.

50 yards is usually where the pistol becomes worthless, no? Only a few at 50+ yards that took place.

But lets wait for a few more cases to stack up. The low body count is what matters, not the fact that the argument is "girls just wanna have fun." I'm being silly.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2013-01-23 19:53:04

#1872

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6739

we all talked about the effectiveness of a pistol in close range... like 99% of all firearm homicides and most previous mass shootings.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2013-01-23 20:48:09

#1873

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5496|Ventura, California

Adams_BJ wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Pochsy wrote:

Fireworks are fun. Why are they regulated and illegal in some states?
Fire problems for one.
Dead people is a pretty good one.

Fires here in Southern California are a huge risk. There's at least a dozen fires every year that destroy lots of property. Fireworks aren't in our constitution, guns are.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2013-01-23 21:00:06

#1874

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6681|BC, Canada

Lol propety... lol.

Familys, people... that old paper makes it right!

2013-01-23 21:02:47

#1875

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,736|6760|Oxferd Ohire

the old paper has a lot of influence

BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Board footer