13rin
Member
+977|6781

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

imortal wrote:

I just found this in another forum.  Don't ask how.  It is almost embarrasing.  Now, if you look at it from another point of view, this videon shows how a lot of people think and feel about firearms (some of them in this forum).  Should be good for a laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
Jesus god.

That was the most pathetic bunch of wankers I have Eva seen.
Kind of reminds me of my cousin. I gave him instructions on the shotgun, how to fire and keep safe etc. I then went off to let off a clay for him to shoot at. He backed back until his heels where up against my parents back door threshold. Fired the gun, the recoil pushed him back (stance was feet together, contrary to what I had told him) into the house, he fell on his back and emptied the second barrel into my mums ceiling. He cried for about 3 hours, I'm not joking. Scared the shit outta him. He is a fucking disaster to this day. And yes, I think he is gay.
Glad he ok, but that must have been funny as hell.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7016|US

Burwhale wrote:

People keep talking about founding fathers etc, but the founding fathers could have absolutely no idea of ,

1: the deadliness of todays weapons
2: how bad  gun related death is in some parts of the US
3:How little need there is for a regulated militia.

Times change, automatic weapons would have scared the founding fathers to death if they saw them. The efficiency of todays guns has increased to a point where it is total overkill to use them for home defence.
Ask yourself if you really need a well regulated militia. There isnt going to be an uprising, you really are fooling yourself. By all means try with whatever means you have  at your disposal. Your efforts will be short lived, you cant compete with the guns owned by the govt.

Also what the hell is a "well regulated militia" anyway? Who is regulating it. The government?  Arent they the ones we are fighting in the first place? If not regulated by  the government, the "regulated militia" is just a group of nut jobs that like to dress up in camo gear and pretend they have authority because they carry a gun. No thanks, I will take my chances with the government.

Ramius wrote:

I don't NEED  a 22" monitor either...get my drift?
The important difference here is that a 22inch monitor cant blow large holes in numerous people in quick succession.
For what its worth, I dont care if civilians own guns, but there should be regulation.
considering some people owned artillery, an AR-15 might be a mechanical amazement to the founders, but in terms of firepower, not really THAT much more impressive than a howitzer.

"Well regulated" as in a well regulated clock--one that functions well.

Now, you go spewing rediculous stereotypes...this tells me you don't understand the debate very well.
Yes, if I want to own an Ar-15 I'm probably some militia nutjob running around the forrest, waiting for the  black helicopters to come.  There are several million AR-15s in the US.  I'm sure the majority are owned by such people!  In fact, I probably am one of them! (Being in the military and a college student who likes to debate constitutional law--yep, definitely crazed anarchist! /sarcasm).

...and if I want to own a 200mph street-legal race car, which could easily kill people by accident (and is probably more likely to), should I be denied that as well?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-02-27 06:11:58)

cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6775|Kakanien
cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
Actually, modern weapons aren't designed to kill people, either.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
Doesn't that make cars more dangerous?  The very fact that there are at least as many automobiles out there as guns, and that they are so easily operable in a maner they were not designed for, and able to take so many lives seems to me like they are even worse than guns are.  They are also obtainable without anything more than a credit check.  Everyone assumes a car is 'safe,' takes them for granted, and people die.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6455|what

imortal wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
Doesn't that make cars more dangerous?  The very fact that there are at least as many automobiles out there as guns, and that they are so easily operable in a maner they were not designed for, and able to take so many lives seems to me like they are even worse than guns are.  They are also obtainable without anything more than a credit check.  Everyone assumes a car is 'safe,' takes them for granted, and people die.
Your argument would be even better had you used Cigarettes.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

AussieReaper wrote:

imortal wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
Doesn't that make cars more dangerous?  The very fact that there are at least as many automobiles out there as guns, and that they are so easily operable in a maner they were not designed for, and able to take so many lives seems to me like they are even worse than guns are.  They are also obtainable without anything more than a credit check.  Everyone assumes a car is 'safe,' takes them for granted, and people die.
Your argument would be even better had you used Cigarettes.
I just continued on his thread.  On cigarettes, I think as long as the public is told the truth, that people have every right to commit slow suicide.  As long as they smoke where secondhand smoke is reduced to a non-terminal risk to passerbys, and that there is NO goverment provided health care coverage to smokers, I could care less what they do.  That whole 'freedom' thing again.

By the way, when we started down the 2nd Ammendment road, this thread became unwinnable argument #3.  I was hoping we could keep this still in the realms of "Obama lied," put that got passed over really quickly.  I distinctly remember Obama saying "I don't want to take your guns," Biden saying "I won't let him take our guns," (remember Biden's comment about owning a Baretta himself?)  And what I really remember is some people here on the forum saying that Obama didn't want to take our guns, and that we were all paranoid worrying about nothing.

[EDIT]I also think the really idiotic thing is that the justification for the law proposal is to reduce domestic crime in another nation.  I am really iffy on how that is even possible, since most of the weapons they favor still are restricted in the US to begin with, not to mention why Obama is more concerned with Mexicans than Americans.  Why not go after people selling any possible American weapons to Mexican gangs than trying to force the issue for all of the US?  It is just another Democratic party point.  "Change" and "Hope" are becoming more tarnished day by day.  Obama is the same old Democrat with a new package and better advertising.[/EDIT]

Second [EDIT] Oh, another thing.  Back in the "old days" (early 20th Century)  silenced and fully automatic firearms were freely avaiable in the United States.  There were not huge problems with criminal and gang use until the Goverment passed Prohabition, allowing the mafia a foothold in the US through black marketing. I do not think our problems with society can ba solved by taking away the firearms.  The problem lies deeper, and needs to be addressed, getting rid of the reasons for violence, instead of just pallative treatment by taking away some of the methods of that violence. [/EDIT]

And, just to kill my credibility, I am going to post part of a chain letter in here.  I can not vouch for any of the numbers, but it is appropriate:
A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Uganda established gun c ontrol in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australiataxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that whilethe law-abiding citizens turned them in, thecriminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns............We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'..
-------------------------------------
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

Last edited by imortal (2009-02-27 09:11:21)

FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

imortal wrote:

I just found this in another forum.  Don't ask how.  It is almost embarrasing.  Now, if you look at it from another point of view, this videon shows how a lot of people think and feel about firearms (some of them in this forum).  Should be good for a laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
Jesus god.

That was the most pathetic bunch of wankers I have Eva seen.
Kind of reminds me of my cousin. I gave him instructions on the shotgun, how to fire and keep safe etc. I then went off to let off a clay for him to shoot at. He backed back until his heels where up against my parents back door threshold. Fired the gun, the recoil pushed him back (stance was feet together, contrary to what I had told him) into the house, he fell on his back and emptied the second barrel into my mums ceiling. He cried for about 3 hours, I'm not joking. Scared the shit outta him. He is a fucking disaster to this day. And yes, I think he is gay.
over under?

one of my cousins did roughly the same thing on the farm, sighted the clay on the rise, boom, squelch as he fell back into the bog. moron
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6775|Kakanien

imortal wrote:

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !
please tell me you're kidding...
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6775|Kakanien

imortal wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
Doesn't that make cars more dangerous?  The very fact that there are at least as many automobiles out there as guns, and that they are so easily operable in a maner they were not designed for, and able to take so many lives seems to me like they are even worse than guns are.  They are also obtainable without anything more than a credit check.  Everyone assumes a car is 'safe,' takes them for granted, and people die.
so, you would have to stop the selling of cars, knives, airplanes, baseball hats, golf clubs, hockey sticks, petrol etc.
13rin
Member
+977|6781

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !
please tell me you're kidding...
Actually, he speaks true.  Post war interview.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6775|Kakanien

DBBrinson1 wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !
please tell me you're kidding...
Actually, he speaks true.  Post war interview.
i won't bore you with historical facts, but this is surely not the cause why the japanese haven't invaded america during ww2

edit: by that i mean american mainland, not the philippines, hawaii etc.

Last edited by cl4u53w1t2 (2009-02-27 11:24:24)

13rin
Member
+977|6781

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:


please tell me you're kidding...
Actually, he speaks true.  Post war interview.
i won't bore you with historical facts, but this is surely not the cause why the japanese haven't invaded america during ww2

edit: by that i mean american mainland, not the philippines, hawaii etc.
There were others, but you can't summiraly dismiss this reason.  I'll try to find THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW of the Japaneese General.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6893

DBBrinson1 wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:


Actually, he speaks true.  Post war interview.
i won't bore you with historical facts, but this is surely not the cause why the japanese haven't invaded america during ww2

edit: by that i mean american mainland, not the philippines, hawaii etc.
There were others, but you can't summiraly dismiss this reason.  I'll try to find THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW of the Japaneese General.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Admiral during WW-2)

I'd quoted it previously in this thread, even.

He wasn't just speaking for the Japanese alone.  He was stating why no nation would want to invade the US.

Akin to someone stating "It's not a good idea to invade Russia in the winter".
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6775|Kakanien
Did the Japanese have the ability to conduct raids on our West Coast, and more importantly, did U.S. policy-makers believe that they did?

This is a complicated issue and I won't be able to cover everything in this post.

It is said that amateurs discuss strategy, pros discuss logistics. While perhaps overstated, this aphorism does have much truth in it, for the question of whether Japan could have conducted raids along our coast depends on an answer to this question.

Many at the time seemed to believe that actual invasion by troops was a possiblilty. The facts are that it would have been just about impossible for Japan to have carried this out. Let's briefly go over some principles for amphibious attacks.

The general rule is that the larger the invasion force, the closer (to the target) one needs their jump-off base. In other words, you can travel a long way with a small invasion force, but only a short distance with a large one. We needed a huge force to attack Normandy, and it was assembled in Britain, only a few short miles away. No way this force could have traveled from the U.S., for example. Likewise, the entire rational for our invasion of Okinawa in 1945 was to secure a base for the invasion of Japan proper. We could not have sailed the necessary fleet from our bases in the Marianas, for example.

Likewise, the various U.S. invasions of islands in the Pacific (Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, etc) were relatively small-scale affairs, at least when compared to D-Day in Normandy, or to a possible invasion of Japan proper. Therefore we could sail our invasion fleet for some distance before attacking.

Most of this was known at least in theory during the initial days of the war. Even with a jump-off point of Hawaii it is hard to see how the Japanese could have invaded the continental U.S. However, there was much "concern: (really bordering on hysteria) in the country following Pearl Harbor, even among otherwise sober policy makers. Some of them can therefore be forgiven for imagining that Japanese troops might land on our beaches.

As for coastal raids, that is another matter. In order to have carries out these raids the Japanese would have needed to occupy Pearl Harbor. The object of their December 7 attack was not to do this, but to simply cripple our fleet so they could take over the western Pacific, which they did over the course of the next six months. They did not invade Hawaii at the time because they lacked the logistical capability to do so, and because the US still had substantial forces in the western Pacific.

http://theredhunter.com/2005/02/was_a_j … ssible.php
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6775|Kakanien

rdx-fx wrote:

Akin to someone stating "It's not a good idea to invade Russia in the winter".
now i doubt the generals competence(?), bec a child could have told you that
rdx-fx
...
+955|6893

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Akin to someone stating "It's not a good idea to invade Russia in the winter".
now i doubt the generals competence(?), bec a child could have told you that
You missed the context of the post you're quoting - or you forgot your [/sarcasm] tag
rdx-fx
...
+955|6893
Discussing the American 2nd Amendment with a forum full of young European liberals.

Like discussing your favorite steak recipe with a room full of vegetarians.
NeXuS
Shock it till ya know it
+375|6643|Atlanta, Georgia
I don't see why we need an assault rifle ban. We've been doing just find the past 4 years without it. If i can't legally purchase an assault rifle, but the crook down the road and easily obtain one for $200 bucks from some crackhead friend he met in peru, then what the fuck? I can't have mine legally but that bastard can have his illegally? It's retarded. I bet all the ones in here bitching  and saying "Oh i don't see why you need a big gun, you must be making up for something", no... Just stop there because you have obviously never had the joy to shoot a fully automatic gun. It's thrilling, loud, and powerful. Perfect for americans no?

Last edited by NeXuS (2009-02-27 13:25:24)

Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7018
I talked to a guy who collects and sells guns... He has heard through a source that Nancy Pelosi had said they aren't going to pursue the ban...
could be wrong... ?  Nothing suprises me what these crazed politicians will try to put through...
Love is the answer
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7016|US
Yamamoto was killed during the war.  The plane he was traveling in was intercepted by a flight of P-38s, and was shot down.  The quote was his, and is quite famous.

+1 on "unwinnable argument #3" 
It is very much a matter of values, in many gun-control debates (the value of CCW being a possible exception, but even the numbers are subject to a lot of error).
I take the libertarian stance.  As long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, I don't care what you own.

______________________
On topic again...
Pres. Obama stated he did not want to take away anyone's guns.  (As did Biden, although his quote from a few years ago "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come" might cast some doubt on the honesty of that statement...)
Technically, banning future production of firearms is not TAKING them from anyone, but the effect is VERY similar.

The writing was on the wall for a LONG time.  The AWB was in Obama's campaign plank, the DNC's plank, and his desire for more gun-laws is well documented by various quotes from before his campaign  and by his voting record (most telling IMO).
The whole "respect the 2nd Amendment" bit was a sound byte response to calm his potential opponents.  Remember, before he supported the Heller ruling, he sided FOR the DC ban.
13rin
Member
+977|6781

rdx-fx wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:


i won't bore you with historical facts, but this is surely not the cause why the japanese haven't invaded america during ww2

edit: by that i mean american mainland, not the philippines, hawaii etc.
There were others, but you can't summiraly dismiss this reason.  I'll try to find THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW of the Japaneese General.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Admiral during WW-2)

I'd quoted it previously in this thread, even.

He wasn't just speaking for the Japanese alone.  He was stating why no nation would want to invade the US.

Akin to someone stating "It's not a good idea to invade Russia in the winter".
You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6882|the dank(super) side of Oregon

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

There is no reason for a civilian to carry around an automatic weapon
civilians don't carry around automatic weapons.  Current laws make automatic weapons very expensive to procure.  legally owned automatic weapons exist, but they aren't used to commit crimes.  Poor people commit crimes and the generally use poor people weapons.
that doesn't change the fact that there's no need for civilians to own an automatic weapon...
who gives a fuck?  they're so rarely used to commit crimes that iit's a non-issue.  they're an experience, like a really well prepared meal, or a ferrari.
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

mcgid1 wrote:

On a lighter note, one of the more laughable reasons given in the article for this ban was that "grenades and automatic weapons" were turning up in the hands of the drug cartels.  Now then, I'm reasonably sure that grenades and automatic weapons were either completely illegal or highly controlled before, during, and after the ban and that the ban had no effect on these devices.  The only possible link to this would be that some of the weapons covered in the ban were being bought and modified for full auto.  However, this could be done with any semi-auto rifle, not just the ones covered under the ban.
The '94 ban did not even mention grenades or automatic weapons, the components to make grenades are heavily regulated, and anyone seeking to legally own an auotmatic weapon has to receive approval from Treasury Dept. (Under Mr. Geithner!)
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

imortal wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cars are not designed to kill people, weapons are
Doesn't that make cars more dangerous?  The very fact that there are at least as many automobiles out there as guns, and that they are so easily operable in a maner they were not designed for, and able to take so many lives seems to me like they are even worse than guns are.  They are also obtainable without anything more than a credit check.  Everyone assumes a car is 'safe,' takes them for granted, and people die.
so, you would have to stop the selling of cars, knives, airplanes, baseball hats, golf clubs, hockey sticks, petrol etc.
Actually, I believe that would be your point.  My point is, if you want a ban because they are 'dangerous,' then you are starting in the wrong spot or you have blinders on.  By the 'dangerous' argument, you would have to ban automobiles, or at least severly restirct them.  The fact that you don't suggest this gives lie to your argument from the start.  You just want to ban guns, and are looking for an excuse to justify your position.  All I did was poke a hole in your reasoning. 

Remember, I am the one who wants to keep all of this stuff legal;  I am not the one suggesting banning anything here.  Oh, and how many times to I have to say that it is not a matter of 'need.'  If you ask "what do you need it for?" then you don't understand the concept of freedoms.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard