BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Jay wrote:

I bet you think lesbians are awesome though Are straight people that have anal sex mentally ill too?

No, and yes.

13urnzz wrote:

m3thod wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

no, it's pretty good for a 200+ year old document. it has stood up to interpretation a little better than, say, the bible.

it's the tards that are doing the interpretation that suck dick. and the ones that agree with them that swallow.

Dont care for it.  My post is a joke, treat it like so...(a bit like porky did, but Christ something more original)

I will say it did a fine job in National Treasure.

we have a real problem, in America. people trample the 1st amendment on their way to the 2nd. like the bible, people pick and choose what they hold so dear.

has anyone here actually read the bible? the constitution? can anyone actually tell me, with a straight face, that the people that wrote those historical documents foresaw our time and situation?

Pfft, don't be silly 13urnzz, they clearly had automatic weapons equivalent to a section of muskets in mind when they put that idea forward. I mean with all those Redcoats and Injuns and bears you see running around these days, you can't be too careful.

Speaking of bears...

If we used our guns for what the second amendment suggests, we wouldn't have school shootings and fascism.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jay wrote:

I really wish people weren't so ignorant... oh well.

Ok Jay. Tell me what the Second Amendment says you should have firearms for, and then tell me what the time was like when it was written as compared to today.

A well regulated militia?

Fine, it isn't the wild west, but it's still packed with weirdos and crazies. And good luck with the violence and riots that would spawn from a government entity rounding up everyone's personal firearms.

And how much did the assault weapons ban really reduce gun violence? Were AK-47 7-11 robberies really that common? I'm sure a madman could pack 4-6 handguns and kill just as many or more people as he could with a rifle.

I also don't remember seeing the word "unless" in the second amendment. Advocates for a general ban seem to think that everything hangs on the first part of that sentence.

Jay wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jay wrote:

I really wish people weren't so ignorant... oh well.

Ok Jay. Tell me what the Second Amendment says you should have firearms for, and then tell me what the time was like when it was written as compared to today. 

This isn't the frontier. This isn't the wild west. This is the modern day with organisations dedicated to protecting people. They don't need Joe Six-Pack running around on adrenalin thinking he's the JB super agents rolled into one, misintepreting the situation and making it worse than it could be. Shooting might be fun. I'd agree with that. I'd like to go shooting at a range. But that is where the kind of guns you'd find in a warzone belong. Not on the streets or neighbourhood of a country in peacetime. Live in the country and want a rifle? Fine. You get one rifle and low-cap mags. You don't need a machine gun or an automatic weapon to fend off wildlife or intruders. You don't need Sarah Connor's weapon cache. The Soviets aren't going to invade, there aren't platoon's of mecrenaries sent by Danny Glover coming after you. A little fun is no justification for permitting a system that gives maniacs one of the easiest means of killing people en masse, and if you think its ok to have an occasional massacre so long as you can pluck a bit of enjoyment out of an activity viewed very differently by the rest of the world at home, then there is something fundamentally wrong. You want to shoot an automatic weapon capable of putting rounds through walls and anything short of a car's engine block? Go somewhere designed for them where they are kept under far greater security than any homeowner could.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about so just stop. You don't know anything about my country, obviously never been here. Just stop posting. I don't care about your opinion because it is based on ignorance.

Yeah, I have been to the U.S. Strange thing is, you're dodging at every opportunity to either answer any questions, provide any possible solutions, or actually post anything other than declaring people ignorant. Your right to a gun is based on a time of instability and genuine threat to someones home on a day to day business, where hunting for food was a necessity, where lawlessness was rife. That doesn't exist anymore and if it does it is because of the mass proliferation of weaponry into you system. You declare people from a place with strict gun laws as pussies, and yet you live in a country where people can often only feel safe with a hand cannon stuffed down their pants. Your second amendment is outdated and misinterpreted. You have created an irreversible scenario that leads to innocent people being blown away by nutters and political and religious fundamentalists. You have a right to guns. I feel the right for someone to live without the fear of having a bullet put through the skull is vastly more important. You said you were sickened by what happened at Sandy Hook, yet have no issue with the status quo that allows them to happen. Can you genuinely say it is fine to have people on a daily basis shooting in streets and car parks and malls, or that 30,000 needless deaths a year is acceptable?

Obviously only people that have been to a country and interacted with local politics on an intimate level are allowed to opine about the various laws there.  And if you haven't, or aren't a citizen? Ignorant, don't talk, just stop.

You guys (jay and unnamed) are the ones being stupid.  In jay's case, we are talking about someone who has an opinion on everything, makes general statements about things he knows nothing about (or demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of), and then dismisses people's opinions with a smug wave of the hand.  Absolutely pathetic.

Do you know how many weapons I own? Zero. Do you know how many weapons are in my immediate family? Between my three brothers, my two brother-in-laws, and my four sets of parents, there is one shotgun and maybe an old Civil War era musket if my dad still has it. None of my friends own guns that I know of. None of us really feel unsafe. We certainly don't walk around with a hand cannon stuffed down our pants. Of course, as Ken will point out, this is anecdotal, but I think we're fairly representative of the area we live in.

Most of the guns in this country are located in the South, Midwest and Southwest where there is indeed a lot of hunting to do, and people live in more rural settings where cops can't get to peoples homes very quickly. There was a time not all that long ago when nearly everyone in NYC was armed. If you go to a museum you can see the walking stick shotguns that were carried by the well-to-do. As the police force became more professional, this went away. Back in that time period, there were a lot more guns per capita in the country as a whole, and yet we didn't have issues with people going nuts and committing acts of mass murder. It's a new phenomena, and it's not something you can blame on easy access to weapons, because that's always been there. Something changed. Personally, I blame it on the lack of social interaction between people with the rise of the personal computer, the internet, video game systems, etc. I think people feel disconnected and isolated and this is their way of punishing society for those feelings.

Now, that said, I call you ignorant because you're talking about gun control when you can't even define what a gun is. As soon as you started talking about automatic weapons and machine guns I just wrote you off as stupid. Maybe you're not, but if you want to be taken seriously, do some research before you speak.

Here are the major types of firearm actions:
Automatic (also known as fully-automatic) - you pull the trigger and the gun fires until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammo.
Semi-automatic - you pull the trigger and the gun fires one bullet.
Revolver - you pull the trigger and the gun fires one bullet.
Bolt-action - you pull the trigger and it fires one bullet. You must work the bolt action to reload it.

Automatic weapons are not legal in the United States except under very special circumstances. They are so rare, that they can basically be ignored. The guy in Newtown also did not use 'assault rifles'. He used two semi-automatic handguns. Frankly, whatever weapons he used didn't really matter since his victims were 100% defenseless. He could've sat there reloading a revolver with a speed loader. Doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm tired of this topic already.

haha, i'm calling you stupid for dismissing other peoples opinions without offering up your own, or evidence, or informed thought, or logical reason - you know, stuff you generally use when DEBATING someone.  You guys don't even want to engage with MOAB - you're just telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about - no contrary opinion, no informed opinion to back up your words, nothing - just a dismissive "you don't know what you're talking about."  I'm not in this argument - i'm observing how you two are interacting with MOAB - someone who's making an effort, only to be refuted by the intellectual great wall duo of newbie and jay.  Well done, bravo, slow clap.

And then a "yawn, I'm tired of talking, I don't want to talk about this anymore (but i'll make sure to tell you you're wrong)."  I don't think I'm the only one that sees this.

kj wrote:

derpty derpity diddly derp

No YOU'RE stupid. I win. Hey, your tactics work perfectly. Now I feel better about myself.

Jay wrote:

Do you know how many weapons I own? Zero. Do you know how many weapons are in my immediate family? Between my three brothers, my two brother-in-laws, and my four sets of parents, there is one shotgun and maybe an old Civil War era musket if my dad still has it. None of my friends own guns that I know of. None of us really feel unsafe. We certainly don't walk around with a hand cannon stuffed down our pants. Of course, as Ken will point out, this is anecdotal, but I think we're fairly representative of the area we live in.

Most of the guns in this country are located in the South, Midwest and Southwest where there is indeed a lot of hunting to do, and people live in more rural settings where cops can't get to peoples homes very quickly. There was a time not all that long ago when nearly everyone in NYC was armed. If you go to a museum you can see the walking stick shotguns that were carried by the well-to-do. As the police force became more professional, this went away. Back in that time period, there were a lot more guns per capita in the country as a whole, and yet we didn't have issues with people going nuts and committing acts of mass murder. It's a new phenomena, and it's not something you can blame on easy access to weapons, because that's always been there. Something changed. Personally, I blame it on the lack of social interaction between people with the rise of the personal computer, the internet, video game systems, etc. I think people feel disconnected and isolated and this is their way of punishing society for those feelings.

Now, that said, I call you ignorant because you're talking about gun control when you can't even define what a gun is. As soon as you started talking about automatic weapons and machine guns I just wrote you off as stupid. Maybe you're not, but if you want to be taken seriously, do some research before you speak.

Here are the major types of firearm actions:
Automatic (also known as fully-automatic) - you pull the trigger and the gun fires until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammo.
Semi-automatic - you pull the trigger and the gun fires one bullet.
Revolver - you pull the trigger and the gun fires one bullet.
Bolt-action - you pull the trigger and it fires one bullet. You must work the bolt action to reload it.

Automatic weapons are not legal in the United States except under very special circumstances. They are so rare, that they can basically be ignored. The guy in Newtown also did not use 'assault rifles'. He used two semi-automatic handguns. Frankly, whatever weapons he used didn't really matter since his victims were 100% defenseless. He could've sat there reloading a revolver with a speed loader. Doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm tired of this topic already.

I'm very aware of what defines a firearm's type, of SA, DA, DAO. I'm the kind of person who would specifiy weapon type (eg Type-56 for a full wood stock Sino-AK) as opposed to using the colloquial term. I would only term it an assault rifle because aside from the manner in which the trigger works, it's the same thing.

If somebody feels they genuinely need to defend themselves with a firearm, that firearm should be restricted in terms of calibre and capacity. I never said all crimes would stop, I'd be naiive to think so. But why should nothing be done to try and at least reduce the number of severe crimes like this? I've seen a lot of pictures shot in combat showing the after effects of rifle ammunition, whether 5.56 and 7.62, and thinking about their effects on a 6 year old child is a horror I would never ever wish to see in person or upon anyone.

People will always kill each other over anything. Religion, politics, parking in their spot. But I don't see why it should be so easy for someone to get their hands on weaponry that was originally designed for warfare, the only real difference being that instead of churning out rounds with one pull, you yank the trigger a few times. It is still the same weapon with the same effects, and as far as I'm aware, actually puts it closer to military use of controllable semi-automatic fire. I'm sure they switched the M16A2 to three-round burst from the A1s automatic because it wasn't always effective.

A semi-auto Armalite-, Kalashnikov-, Norinco-, FN- or HK-pattern rifle using a variety of ammunition and feeding from magazines ranging from 10-100 rounds, additionally outfitted with any variety of optical devices being kept in someones house just makes no sense whatsoever. People need licenses and training to drive cars, ride bikes, and fly aircraft to try and maximise safety, things developed to transport people. Yet you need nothing of the sort for a piece of equipment whose sole purpose is to kill or severely wound something.

As I have said, I would have no problem going shooting at a range. I find weapons to be interesting. But anything above a pistol or shotgun should remain on a range where its usage can be monitored. You should not be allowed to take it home with you. Something like that is not necessary and poses more problems than benefits to your society. American is full of lovely, kind and respectable people. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of people with acidic political and religious views, people with skewed beliefs who hate on others because of ethnicity and orientation or simply having a different opinion.

I'd imagine a lot of people, especially young men, from any number of countries would enjoy blasting rounds through a gun, but that should be regulated and supervised by responsible individuals. If you want to race cars you do it on a racetrack. The same should go for the more powerful end of firearms.

There is no single solution to the issue. It has to be hit from multiple angles. People need to be educated of the effects and trained in the usage. The mentally unstable need to monitored and helped. Sensationalism of shooters has to be nipped hard. You have to impose restrictions. Absolute freedom in any one area leads to too many problems. There are some things in life you should not be allowed to do, and carting around a weapon in your car (whether to go to a range or hunting or just kept there) or keeping it in a cabinet specifically designed to take out soldiers in body armour over distance, no matter how legitimate your intentions are or how many precautions you take, will never be safe.

You can't eradicate crime or the primal aspects of humanity, but you can damn well try and reduce the damage.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

haha, i'm calling you stupid for dismissing other peoples opinions without offering up your own, or evidence, or informed thought, or logical reason - you know, stuff you generally use when DEBATING someone.  You guys don't even want to engage with MOAB - you're just telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about - no contrary opinion, no informed opinion to back up your words, nothing - just a dismissive "you don't know what you're talking about."  I'm not in this argument - i'm observing how you two are interacting with MOAB - someone who's making an effort, only to be refuted by the intellectual great wall duo of newbie and jay.  Well done, bravo, slow clap.

And then a "yawn, I'm tired of talking, I don't want to talk about this anymore (but i'll make sure to tell you you're wrong)."  I don't think I'm the only one that sees this.

Yes, we're dismissing him because he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. Same goes for you and your obsession with 'assault rifles' when it's been pointed out numerous times that they are inferior weapons. You don't care.

Here's the criteria under the 'assault rifle' ban that went away a few years ago: "forbidden models are banned only if they have detachable magazines plus at least two of these five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor." Please tell me why a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher and a flash suppressor have to do with the function of the weapon? Nothing. It's all cosmetic stuff. It means nothing.

My obsession with assault rifles goes as far as me wanting one and liking to shoot them.  Keep pretending you know what I think.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jay wrote:

Do you know how many weapons I own? Zero. Do you know how many weapons are in my immediate family? Between my three brothers, my two brother-in-laws, and my four sets of parents, there is one shotgun and maybe an old Civil War era musket if my dad still has it. None of my friends own guns that I know of. None of us really feel unsafe. We certainly don't walk around with a hand cannon stuffed down our pants. Of course, as Ken will point out, this is anecdotal, but I think we're fairly representative of the area we live in.

Most of the guns in this country are located in the South, Midwest and Southwest where there is indeed a lot of hunting to do, and people live in more rural settings where cops can't get to peoples homes very quickly. There was a time not all that long ago when nearly everyone in NYC was armed. If you go to a museum you can see the walking stick shotguns that were carried by the well-to-do. As the police force became more professional, this went away. Back in that time period, there were a lot more guns per capita in the country as a whole, and yet we didn't have issues with people going nuts and committing acts of mass murder. It's a new phenomena, and it's not something you can blame on easy access to weapons, because that's always been there. Something changed. Personally, I blame it on the lack of social interaction between people with the rise of the personal computer, the internet, video game systems, etc. I think people feel disconnected and isolated and this is their way of punishing society for those feelings.

Now, that said, I call you ignorant because you're talking about gun control when you can't even define what a gun is. As soon as you started talking about automatic weapons and machine guns I just wrote you off as stupid. Maybe you're not, but if you want to be taken seriously, do some research before you speak.

Here are the major types of firearm actions:
Automatic (also known as fully-automatic) - you pull the trigger and the gun fires until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammo.
Semi-automatic - you pull the trigger and the gun fires one bullet.
Revolver - you pull the trigger and the gun fires one bullet.
Bolt-action - you pull the trigger and it fires one bullet. You must work the bolt action to reload it.

Automatic weapons are not legal in the United States except under very special circumstances. They are so rare, that they can basically be ignored. The guy in Newtown also did not use 'assault rifles'. He used two semi-automatic handguns. Frankly, whatever weapons he used didn't really matter since his victims were 100% defenseless. He could've sat there reloading a revolver with a speed loader. Doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm tired of this topic already.

I'm very aware of what defines a firearm's type, of SA, DA, DAO. I'm the kind of person who would specifiy weapon type (eg Type-56 for a full wood stock Sino-AK) as opposed to using the colloquial term. I would only term it an assault rifle because aside from the manner in which the trigger works, it's the same thing.

If somebody feels they genuinely need to defend themselves with a firearm, that firearm should be restricted in terms of calibre and capacity. I never said all crimes would stop, I'd be naiive to think so. But why should nothing be done to try and at least reduce the number of severe crimes like this? I've seen a lot of pictures shot in combat showing the after effects of rifle ammunition, whether 5.56 and 7.62, and thinking about their effects on a 6 year old child is a horror I would never ever wish to see in person or upon anyone.

People will always kill each other over anything. Religion, politics, parking in their spot. But I don't see why it should be so easy for someone to get their hands on weaponry that was originally designed for warfare, the only real difference being that instead of churning out rounds with one pull, you yank the trigger a few times. It is still the same weapon with the same effects, and as far as I'm aware, actually puts it closer to military use of controllable semi-automatic fire. I'm sure they switched the M16A2 to three-round burst from the A1s automatic because it wasn't always effective.

A semi-auto Armalite-, Kalashnikov-, Norinco-, FN- or HK-pattern rifle using a variety of ammunition and feeding from magazines ranging from 10-100 rounds, additionally outfitted with any variety of optical devices being kept in someones house just makes no sense whatsoever. People need licenses and training to drive cars, ride bikes, and fly aircraft to try and maximise safety, things developed to transport people. Yet you need nothing of the sort for a piece of equipment whose sole purpose is to kill or severely wound something.

As I have said, I would have no problem going shooting at a range. I find weapons to be interesting. But anything above a pistol or shotgun should remain on a range where its usage can be monitored. You should not be allowed to take it home with you. Something like that is not necessary and poses more problems than benefits to your society. American is full of lovely, kind and respectable people. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of people with acidic political and religious views, people with skewed beliefs who hate on others because of ethnicity and orientation or simply having a different opinion.

I'd imagine a lot of people, especially young men, from any number of countries would enjoy blasting rounds through a gun, but that should be regulated and supervised by responsible individuals. If you want to race cars you do it on a racetrack. The same should go for the more powerful end of firearms.

There is no single solution to the issue. It has to be hit from multiple angles. People need to be educated of the effects and trained in the usage. The mentally unstable need to monitored and helped. Sensationalism of shooters has to be nipped hard. You have to impose restrictions. Absolute freedom in any one area leads to too many problems. There are some things in life you should not be allowed to do, and carting around a weapon in your car (whether to go to a range or hunting or just kept there) or keeping it in a cabinet specifically designed to take out soldiers in body armour over distance, no matter how legitimate your intentions are or how many precautions you take, will never be safe.

You can't eradicate crime or the primal aspects of humanity, but you can damn well try and reduce the damage.

So you don't believe people should be able to defend themselves in their own home? Total non-starter. Maybe you trust your cops more than we do, but there's almost as many stories about police corruption, brutality, no knock raids on wrong houses etc as there are shootings by civilians. In fact, I think cops shoot more people. Regardless, we have the right to defend ourselves in our homes. That's never going away.

As for the rest, you're hating on a bunch of people you've never met, the same traits you're ascribing to them. I don't fear religious gun nuts. They're not the ones going out and shooting up schools. It's white, middle class men who are doing almost all of the killings in the parts of the country where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on the populace. So there goes that theory.

Frankly, you're falling in line with everyone else on this subject that lies to the left on the political spectrum. Racist redneck religious freaks should have their toys taken away from them. That's what it boils down to. They're different from us. They're scary. They're also not the problem. No, the people performing these acts are like you and me: white, middle class, suburban/urban, spend too much time on the internet etc. Apparently we're the problem, but it's much easier to point fingers at others.