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

Spearhead wrote:

I noticed you didn't answer his question....

What was the question again?

I've heard conflicting stories on what was used at Sandy Hook, and that people were leant on to say it was an AR15 and not handguns.

a bushmaster did most of the work in connecticutt. the shooter (i refuse to post his name, we need to stop sensationalizing murderers in America) killed two people with a handgun - mommie dearest (the legal owner of the bushmaster) and himself. the shooter in colorado used a semi-auto, and carried a handgun as well. that pussy didn't pull the trigger on himself, and neither did the arizona shooter (who did use a handgun, with an extended clip).

the so called liberals are dumbshits when they call climate change "Global Warming" and do not acknowledge 2nd amendment rights when calling for gun control.

When you say gun control to a republican it simply means to use both hands on the weapon. they don't see what the uproar is all about, until they can't get ammo at the local gun shop/show. then they log into their favorite talking points website and see what color the alert is for "OMG Obama's taking R guns!" is for the day. the democrats (which own as many guns by percentage) worry that they can't capitalize on the latest tragedy, and create talking points by committee.

So, the veep recommends the weakest gun control bill of obama's presidency because he hasn't proposed jack shit since he's been elected, the nra releases an app for  the Ipad© where your avatars nose turns brown the more virtual holes you put into a virtual target, and the fact that real people die erryday is of no consequence because niether party can make a witty slogan out of 20 kids' death at sandy hook elementary school.

GG America! Once again proving we are the most entertained and least educated country in the industrialized world! We're #1!

Dilbert_X wrote:

From my perspective it beyond stupid that an 18/21yr old can buy a semi-auto rifle as their first firearm, unlimiited ammunition and magazines no questions asked and without having to demonstrate some maturity and suitability, or undergo any training to possess a highly lethal weapon.

Less than 0.06% of all gun deaths are from those semi-automatic rifles with unlimited ammo. Where's the mass shootings and people dying left and right because it's an "assault weapon"



@Jeakus: It's not about you asking me why I need one, it's me asking you why I shouldn't have one. Like I mentioned above, less than 0.06% of gun deaths are from assault rifles. Tell me why the fuck it should be restricted and hard to get? That's like restricting a Lamborghini vs. a honda civic when more people die in Honda Civic accidents. fucks sake man

-Sh1fty- wrote:

@Jeakus: It's not about you asking me why I need one, it's me asking you why I shouldn't have one. Like I mentioned above, less than 0.06% of gun deaths are from assault rifles. Tell me why the fuck it should be restricted and hard to get? That's like restricting a Lamborghini vs. a honda civic when more people die in Honda Civic accidents. fucks sake man

And this post tells me there is no need to own an assault rifle. Thanks!

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-20 01:17:21)

Cybargs wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

@Jeakus: It's not about you asking me why I need one, it's me asking you why I shouldn't have one. Like I mentioned above, less than 0.06% of gun deaths are from assault rifles. Tell me why the fuck it should be restricted and hard to get? That's like restricting a Lamborghini vs. a honda civic when more people die in Honda Civic accidents. fucks sake man

And this post tells me there is no need to own an assault rifle. Thanks!

Even dickhead shifty doesn't understand how to apply the purpose of the second amendment to owning an AR-15.

How about owning an AR-15 to prevent a tyranny from taking control of America? History has millions of examples of democracies gone tyrannical and regimes becoming committing crimes against its people who do not have weapons. Maybe it wouldn't be in our life time that America becomes a dictatorship, but who can tell in the next 50+ years.

i could buy that as a quaint and archaic form of militia-organization in the 18th and 19th century. but it's the 21st century now, and if the tyranny comes, it'll come with a military and intelligence junta who are far technologically advanced over any civilian population. you say "look at examples of tyranny in history", and yep, i'm seeing lots in recent times... i'm seeing syria right now, where a bunch of civilians and car mechanics with ak-47's are getting owned by a dictator with fighter jets and tanks and attack helicopters and missiles - with chemical weapons and much nastier stuff still in the bank. times this by a thousand in the case of an 'american' tyranny, where they will have state of the art drones, nuclear weapons, and some of the most advanced sea- and air- vehicles ever made. what's a redneck in the colorado mountains going to do with an AR-15 then?

the second-amendment to defend against tyranny made sense when it was written... back when war and revolution was a bunch of dudes queuing politely opposite one another with single-shot rifles, taking potshots, i.e. back when the technology was basically an even playing field. nowadays, 'the power' or 'the state' has access to resources and munitions far beyond the economic resources or organisation of a civilian population. so that antique and quaint idea - "to take up arms against tyranny" - hardly has any practical application at all. and instead you have a routine and mind-boggling (and mindnumbing) number of mass-killings every year, committed with assault rifles. and yet you keep relying on this excuse that they should be public-access because they can, in the extremely rare event, "defend against tyranny". has anyone ever thought this through? i mean, really? when the feds come knocking on your door in their iron-boots, he's not going to come with a potato gun. he's going to flatten you. the idea that keeping an assault rifle is going to make a difference, at all, is delusional. they will make little-to-no-difference against a state tyranny. when used against other civilians, though, in shopping malls and schools and cinemas... well, then the technology advantage is tipped right the other way, and they are plenty good enough at murdering 12 year olds.

oh and not to mention the fact that most 'tyrannies' that people blindly cite from history are actually popular tyrannies. most tyrannical dictators get in because the vast majority of people vote/allow them. the greatest tyrannies of the 20th century have all been mass-movement tyrannies: communism and fascism are political ideologies that appeal to the 'common man', and both had massive popular support on the ground. there won't be some heroic fight with AR-15 equipped patriots, greeting a new tyranny; it'll be the insidious tea-party groups and far-right wingers inviting tyranny into government through their own willpower, without even realizing it. in fact, didn't the neocons take away a large part of your civil-rights in the (appropriately named) patriot act? weren't you all more than willing to give them up in your time of 'crisis'? this is the same strategy whereby hitler burned down the reichstag and blamed it on the communists. when tyranny comes to america, it'll be greeted with flag-waving and an open door. this rhetoric of "defending with arms" is bullshit. it implies a level of political awareness that your average tobacco-chewing, gun-toting redneck will NEVER have.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 06:23:54)

Well that is why the US tries its best to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" thing. Civilians owning weapons will put up a helluva fight, you know the whole hearts and minds shit. US got their ass kicked politically during vietnam, all by a bunch of guys in black pajamas with AKs. Yes I do know most tyrants were spawned out of popularity - that's how they got in power in the first place. There is a fear against government in America, that is how the nation is born and how most of the immigrants that went there feel too, it's just so ingrained to their culture it's a part you can't take away.

Then you also got nutjob assholes who feel the apocolypse is coming and "oath keepers" alex jones types who thinks everyone is out to get them.

If you ban assault rifles, people will still use pistols to commit shootings ala Vtech and Columbine, unless you enforce a blanket gun ban.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.

Do you not see something fundamentally wrong when the head of a powerful organisation that revolves solely around weaponry delivers a suggestion based on a total lack of common sense? His basic solution to every problem is to shoot it and hope for the best. Do you really want to live in a country where the problem of firearms becomes so great that you will see heavily armed police everywhere? Because that is what will happen if this shit continues.

Preventing piss-easy access to weapons designed specifically for battlefield situations, not home defence, is just common sense.

There are two hundred and seventy million firearms in the U.S. that are owned by civilians. There are three hundred million civilions. That's an unfathomably huge number of weapons in circulation and we've had 27 "mass" shootings in the past 14 years.

Do you not see how gun control wouldn't prevent this, and that it's bullshit? It's not about "Why do you need an assault rifle?"

There are 270,000,000 firearms owned by civilians in the U.S. There have been 27 mass shootings. That's ONE lunatic for every ONE HUNDRED MILLION weapons. Asking for stricter gun control is just not grasping the reality of things. Everybody calling me stupid can suck a dick, the statistics speak for themselves. You can't make 270,000,000 weapons disappear; you can't regulate them; you can't make a dent in the homicides with weapons by restricting law abiding citizens from getting fully automatic AR-15s with all the fancy shit they want to make themselves cool. THOSE people don't go on killing sprees, those people like fucking badass guns. The guys who've done these shootings, for the most part, used handguns.

Start grasping reality people, your pathetic gun laws only limit law-abiding citizens.

Shifty, we've had 4 mass shooting events in the past 26 years with 49 fatalities. Three attacks carried out in the US-Sandy Hook, Aurora and VT-totalled 72 fatalities. On top of that you've got an almost daily occurrence of people being shot to death. In 23 years you've had 40 school shooting incidents, and that's just at schools. Your population is five times the size of ours, yet your school shooting rate, if you were to just take that, is forty times as high.

Of the four major shootings here, one of those was committed with a semi-automatic Type 56 AK-pattern rifle. The aftermath of that incident led to the ban of such weapons. Another was committed with two semi-autos and two revolvers at Dunblane, the only major school shooting. After that, handguns became illegal to own. The other two shootings were carried out with double-barrel shotguns, which led to one fatality in one case. Double-barrels are the only ones that weren't banned. You need a certificate from the police to own a shotgun.

driving=/=gun ownership.

driving is a privilege, gun ownership is an american constitutional right.

i don't know if that extends to swiss emigres, but the thing is no outright ban on gun ownership is going to happen.

i just can't wait for the day the NRA lobbies for private ownership of nuclear weapons.

Cybargs wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

@Jeakus: It's not about you asking me why I need one, it's me asking you why I shouldn't have one. Like I mentioned above, less than 0.06% of gun deaths are from assault rifles. Tell me why the fuck it should be restricted and hard to get? That's like restricting a Lamborghini vs. a honda civic when more people die in Honda Civic accidents. fucks sake man

And this post tells me there is no need to own an assault rifle. Thanks!

Even dickhead shifty doesn't understand how to apply the purpose of the second amendment to owning an AR-15.

How about owning an AR-15 to prevent a tyranny from taking control of America? History has millions of examples of democracies gone tyrannical and regimes becoming committing crimes against its people who do not have weapons. Maybe it wouldn't be in our life time that America becomes a dictatorship, but who can tell in the next 50+ years.

Why would I ever need guns let alone an AR-15?

I answered that 3 years ago here...
https://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?p … 8#p2916318

I wrote:

Why do I need guns in a "civilized world" -let alone shit like an AR-15?  One word -KATRINA.  I live in the SE US and scenarios like that do.  You're lack of imagination is my reality.  That 218 years rolls back faster than you think.

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

@Jeakus: It's not about you asking me why I need one, it's me asking you why I shouldn't have one. Like I mentioned above, less than 0.06% of gun deaths are from assault rifles. Tell me why the fuck it should be restricted and hard to get? That's like restricting a Lamborghini vs. a honda civic when more people die in Honda Civic accidents. fucks sake man

And this post tells me there is no need to own an assault rifle. Thanks!

What part of the following sentence is difficult to comprehend? 'there is nothing special about an assault rifle' It's been said multiple times by multiple people and yet you continue to jump on the bandwagon of ignorance and push this stupid line of thought. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It is the same premise as that which lies behind the semi-automatic handgun, or the revolver. You pull the trigger one time, one bullet fires. The physics behind a handgun and rifle are differentiated by one difference: the rifle has a longer barrel and thus the muzzle velocity is higher. Hand guns compensate for this in many cases by using a larger caliber bullet. The rate of fire between the weapons is roughly even. The stopping power of the weapons is roughly even. The accuracy at close range (25m) is roughly even.

Why do police officers carry handguns instead of rifles? Could it be for the very same reasons that criminals also prefer handguns for over 99% of crimes? Ease of carry, concealment, and the tradeoff in firepower at close ranges is negligible. The ammunition is also smaller and lighter to carry.

Harping on assault rifles is an argument made by stupid people to prey on the ignorant with emotion-based messages that have no real meaning. Frankly, I think so many people on this forum have been taken in by the argument because they've been trained by FPS games to think assault rifles are godlike and handguns are puny things you whip out only when you're out of ammo. It doesn't work that way in real life, sorry.

Ty wrote:

Nice to see your grammar's improved since then Shifty oh yes, that's right I went there.

Please explain though, how exactly would having an AR-15 help in a situation like Katrina? From what I can see all it does is help you play out a Mad Max dystopian future fantasy.

Meanwhile, another week, another unbalanced kid gunning down five people with a military-style semi-automatic in the US. I keep thinking, if there's nothing special about these weapons why do they keep turning up?

Call of Duty, Battlefield etc. These are all young adults, yes? What weapons would they most identify with? I'm not blaming video games for their violence, but I am blaming video games for their choice of weapon.

How did you manage to get that idea out of that statement.