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

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jay wrote:

Who are you to tell others what they need or what their desires should be?

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware the United States was currently a warzone comprable to Afghanistan where the average citizen needed an automatic weapon with say a hundred rounds of 7.62 API for when the convoys of evil government soldiers decked out in black come to take away their precious self-defence cannons. Grow the fuck up already.

Your 2nd Amendment was written up for a militia, a purpose that doesn't exist anymore except in the hearts of the whackos who sit in compounds in the middle of nowhere. It was written at a time where you'd be lucky to get off two shots in a minute. It is a right that has been abused since its inception and these days it has little to do with the actual purpose, which is to defend yourself, and more to do with plinking a little metal sheet somewhere. What's wrong with that? Nothing. The problem lies in people taking these weapons back into suburbia where they're easily accessible to either an owner, relative of owner or a stranger off his nut, after which they end up blowing away a dozen or more people. But so long as you can go plinking a few lives are worth it I guess.

American citizens don't possess automatic weapons.

No, gun control advocates in general tend to annoy me. I have a low tolerance for any argument built on emotion.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, gun control advocates in general tend to annoy me. I have a low tolerance for any argument built on emotion.

Common sense more than emotion.

I've never actually said any weapon should be banned entirely. What I've mentioned is restriction on the types of weapons that (even more than handguns and shotguns) have no place whatsoever in a populated area, equipped with the kind of modifications used by soldiers. A soldier needs a weapon with power and capacity to defeat a trained, experienced or fearless enemy with armour or one who is high on coke or khat. A civilian does not.

You can't say that. You can't know every situation that people will be faced with. You can ban whatever you like, but people who want stuff will still find a way to use it. The guys you mentioned that robbed the Bank of America in LA used homemade body armor if I remember the story correctly. How do you stop something like that? By banning kevlar? How far down the ban rabbit hole do you have to go to make the world safer? I disagree with gun control people because what they propose is ineffective or unfeasible. Banning stuff doesn't doesn't work. We've proved that numerous times over with bans on drugs, or even our basic laws. Murder is illegal, yes? Yet people still commit murder. Proactive, preemptive action generally just doesn't work, or if it is moderately effective, it inconveniences innocent people to a ridiculous degree. Are the tradeoffs worth it? Not in my eyes, not when murder sprees are so damned random, and so rare (and they are rare, even if it seems like there's a new one on tv every other month).

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, gun control advocates in general tend to annoy me. I have a low tolerance for any argument built on emotion.

Common sense more than emotion.

I've never actually said any weapon should be banned entirely. What I've mentioned is restriction on the types of weapons that (even more than handguns and shotguns) have no place whatsoever in a populated area, equipped with the kind of modifications used by soldiers. A soldier needs a weapon with power and capacity to defeat a trained, experienced or fearless enemy with armour or one who is high on coke or khat. A civilian does not.

handguns cause the most amount of death by far compared to any other firearm. semi-auto rifles just been popular with the last 2 shootings because motherfuckers wont stop broadcasting who the killer is, the body count and what type of weapon. every other shooting has been done with much easier concealable handguns.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Common sense more than emotion.

I've never actually said any weapon should be banned entirely. What I've mentioned is restriction on the types of weapons that (even more than handguns and shotguns) have no place whatsoever in a populated area, equipped with the kind of modifications used by soldiers. A soldier needs a weapon with power and capacity to defeat a trained, experienced or fearless enemy with armour or one who is high on coke or khat. A civilian does not.

handguns cause the most amount of death by far compared to any other firearm. semi-auto rifles just been popular with the last 2 shootings because motherfuckers wont stop broadcasting who the killer is, the body count and what type of weapon. every other shooting has been done with much easier concealable handguns.

Saying, 'well this type isn't used as often, so leave it alone' is no excuse for not restricting a more destructive weapon. Its the same argument applied to the magazines. The argument is that you can switch out your magazine 'in less than a second' (to quote an NRA chief), making the difference between ten rounds and thirty in the mag moot, except for the fact they would still have less rounds available before needing to reload.

Getting rifles restricted and out of a populated area is not going to stop gun violence, but for crying out loud what's wrong with trying to restrict the damage that could be done? Just because it's not the majority cause it should be ignored?

last time they did an AWB it didn't work too well. it caused no drop in crime nor "mass shootings." hell criminals are still able to get full autos in california where it's illegal to own a full auto weapon. North hollywood bank robbery happened in one of the most gun restrictive states, during one of the most restrictive periods on "military style weapons"

A 9mm will do just as much harm as a .223 when youre shooting at a defenseless crowd. Besides, passing an AWB won't stop the sale of semi-autos, manufacturers will just tweak their weapons so they're civilian legal.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, gun control advocates in general tend to annoy me. I have a low tolerance for any argument built on emotion.

Needing a weapon for self defense and/or to fight black helicopters is an emotive argument. So you should probably have a low tolerance for people who argue from that perspective too.

exactly. so far all these "people coming into my house to rape my wife and children" / "people crazed on drugs and immune to bullets" are strictly non-rational, emotive, fear-driven arguments. hardly cold rationality. an emotional response to want to ban guns - because of the poor children! - is about as objective a formulation as "i want an m16 because people on meth won't die to a 9mm pistol".

Cybargs wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

handguns cause the most amount of death by far compared to any other firearm. semi-auto rifles just been popular with the last 2 shootings because motherfuckers wont stop broadcasting who the killer is, the body count and what type of weapon. every other shooting has been done with much easier concealable handguns.

Saying, 'well this type isn't used as often, so leave it alone' is no excuse for not restricting a more destructive weapon. Its the same argument applied to the magazines. The argument is that you can switch out your magazine 'in less than a second' (to quote an NRA chief), making the difference between ten rounds and thirty in the mag moot, except for the fact they would still have less rounds available before needing to reload.

Getting rifles restricted and out of a populated area is not going to stop gun violence, but for crying out loud what's wrong with trying to restrict the damage that could be done? Just because it's not the majority cause it should be ignored?

last time they did an AWB it didn't work too well. it caused no drop in crime nor "mass shootings." hell criminals are still able to get full autos in california where it's illegal to own a full auto weapon. North hollywood bank robbery happened in one of the most gun restrictive states, during one of the most restrictive periods on "military style weapons"

A 9mm will do just as much harm as a .223 when youre shooting at a defenseless crowd. Besides, passing an AWB won't stop the sale of semi-autos, manufacturers will just tweak their weapons so they're civilian legal.

The NH guys were methodical criminals (who took a lot of tips from Heat). It's not so much about stopping these incidents, because that's not practical, as reducing the chance of them occurring. Criminals will always gain access to something restricted, but the main concern should be the people not seen to be a threat until its too late, when they walk into a public place and open fire. People with mental illness who, had these rifles been locked away in a club, would have been restricted to a weapon with less penetration power and range. Chop the magazine capacity for pistols right down as well and you further reduce the effect they can have.

A 15+ round magazine in a warzone is necessary based on the higher chance of confronting multiple enemies at close range. In a civilian environment you don't need that many and if you do then you need more training. Give a magazine with that capacity to someone and most of their shots are likely to go wide and hit someone else. Reduce the capacity and you reduce the effect the weapon can have. It's not taking the guns away, its restricting their use to something sensible. Saying its not viable because the criminals wouldn't abide by it makes no sense. Criminals don't abide by many if any laws, but you wouldn't break a law just because they did, would you? Just because they carry a weapon with illegal mods doesn't many any law-abider should have the same capability. It's not the role of a civilian to protect the public at large.

M.O.A.B wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Needing a weapon for self defense and/or to fight black helicopters is an emotive argument. So you should probably have a low tolerance for people who argue from that perspective too.

exactly. so far all these "people coming into my house to rape my wife and children" / "people crazed on drugs and immune to bullets" are strictly non-rational, emotive, fear-driven arguments. hardly cold rationality. an emotional response to want to ban guns - because of the poor children! - is about as objective a formulation as "i want an m16 because people on meth won't die to a 9mm pistol".

Funny thing is that in Mogadishu the 5.56 of the CAR-15s had little effect on the khat-crazed Somalis. The rounds went through them and with the drugs they kept coming. Their sidearms, (9mm, .45) with less ability to overpenetrate, were more effective.

double tap that bitch.

MOAB, if you look at all the past shootings in the US, almost all of them occur in a "gun free zone."

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Tyranny is a threat that always looms silently. The colonists didn't expect the British to impose tyrannical laws anymore than we expect Obama to do so today. Whether it's the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, or 2000s; tyranny is always possible and that is why we have the Second Amendment. It wasn't written so we could all have 5-round 7.62 bolt-action hunting rifles, it was written so we could have a means to stop government tyranny. You don't accomplish that with hunting rifles. Hell the colonists didn't even need to start a revolution. They could have bent the knee and gone with the crippling laws. Today we also have crippling laws that make it hard for businesses, particularly small ones.

At the end of the day, it's whoever is still holding a gun that is in charge. I don't want that to be the government. They serve us, we don't serve them. It has become widespread opinion that we are to be little bitches and submit to any law that comes our way. The less power over our lives the better.

Got this one ready to go for you:

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

The military needs them because, surprise, they do have to shoot people at long range. You're in an arms race with your own government? HAHAHA and you think a semi-auto rifle is the answer? Don't worry about the drones, bro, we have small arms fire.

Japs got their ass kicked by a bunch of farmers in the aleutian islands.

Yeah America is doing so well in afghanistan against those dumb mooslims with old AK's. Same with those palestianians, theyre up against powerful israel with uber cool high tech shit, they should just roll over and die.

I like your argument, hey lets just die and give up instead of giving ourselves a chance to fight

When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.

Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.

So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.

There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Tyranny is a threat that always looms silently. The colonists didn't expect the British to impose tyrannical laws anymore than we expect Obama to do so today. Whether it's the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, or 2000s; tyranny is always possible and that is why we have the Second Amendment. It wasn't written so we could all have 5-round 7.62 bolt-action hunting rifles, it was written so we could have a means to stop government tyranny. You don't accomplish that with hunting rifles. Hell the colonists didn't even need to start a revolution. They could have bent the knee and gone with the crippling laws. Today we also have crippling laws that make it hard for businesses, particularly small ones.

At the end of the day, it's whoever is still holding a gun that is in charge. I don't want that to be the government. They serve us, we don't serve them. It has become widespread opinion that we are to be little bitches and submit to any law that comes our way. The less power over our lives the better.

Time to stock up on B-61s.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Common sense more than emotion.

I've never actually said any weapon should be banned entirely. What I've mentioned is restriction on the types of weapons that (even more than handguns and shotguns) have no place whatsoever in a populated area, equipped with the kind of modifications used by soldiers. A soldier needs a weapon with power and capacity to defeat a trained, experienced or fearless enemy with armour or one who is high on coke or khat. A civilian does not.

handguns cause the most amount of death by far compared to any other firearm. semi-auto rifles just been popular with the last 2 shootings because motherfuckers wont stop broadcasting who the killer is, the body count and what type of weapon. every other shooting has been done with much easier concealable handguns.

Saying, 'well this type isn't used as often, so leave it alone' is no excuse for not restricting a more destructive weapon. Its the same argument applied to the magazines. The argument is that you can switch out your magazine 'in less than a second' (to quote an NRA chief), making the difference between ten rounds and thirty in the mag moot, except for the fact they would still have less rounds available before needing to reload.

Getting rifles restricted and out of a populated area is not going to stop gun violence, but for crying out loud what's wrong with trying to restrict the damage that could be done? Just because it's not the majority cause it should be ignored?

Yes.

Shifty knows what he is talking about because he spent so much time in the inner city school systems.