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

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

good luck pistoling 60-100 odd people coming into your store.

and the purpose of the second amendment isn't primarily for hunting, self defence etc, it's about the purpose of an armed citizenry to prevent a tyranny, either foreign or domestic.

why can't pistols prevent tyranny? Why can't a semi-automatic pistol* put bullets in people invading a store? You're the worst self-appointed arbiter of all things American ever. Have you ever even been a tourist?

Same reason as why the military uses rifles and not just pistols. derp.

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.

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

why can't pistols prevent tyranny? Why can't a semi-automatic pistol* put bullets in people invading a store? You're the worst self-appointed arbiter of all things American ever. Have you ever even been a tourist?

Same reason as why the military uses rifles and not just pistols. derp.

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

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Same reason as why the military uses rifles and not just pistols. derp.

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.

Macbeth wrote:

I think the NRA president was spot on during his speech about a lot of things and the NRA has lobbied for a few fairly intelligent gun regulations.

Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the NRA president was spot on during his speech about a lot of things and the NRA has lobbied for a few fairly intelligent gun regulations.

Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?

After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.

You have a commensurate chance of being attacked by someone with a mental illness compared to someone who does not have a mental illness. Mentally ill people are at a greater risk to become victims of crimes.

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-21 20:24:08)

Jaekus wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?

After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.

You have a commensurate chance of being attacked by someone with a mental illness compared to someone who does not have a mental illness. Mentally ill people are at a greater risk to become victims of crimes.

It is the one bone that I have to pick with both the left and the right when it comes to the gun issue. It is also why I applauded the NRA president when he said that America has an obsession with violence. It was nice to hear someone with some authority and say on the matter throw the issue back at American society at large rather than a small minority of people.

Jay wrote:

This is probably what I had in mind when I made my comment:

Plenty of people 'round here are completely ignorant regarding weapons and think AR-15s are fully automatic

Was just wondering, theoretically, how fast can you fire a semi auto weapon?

but, can't you say that that is (potentially) a high rate of fire? So at least one of his points is sort of correct. Kinda.

I think there was a second shooter behind the grassy knoll.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

I know that a rifle has a much higher muzzle velocity than a handgun, but I'm talking about stopping power. At close range, a .223 round will require multiple wounds in order to put someone down. At that speed, and with that cross sectional area, the bullet just goes right through the victim. At longer range, the .223 round will cause more grievous wounds because, as the bullet slows, it's more likely to tumble on impact. Ask pretty much anyone that has been in a combat situation and they will tell you that at extreme close quarters, a .45 cal is preferable. That, or a weapon on burst where you get multiple impacts, or fully automatic. A single shot .223 rifle is like trying to use a pipe wrench to disconnect the battery cable on your car, it can be done, but the tool simply isn't meant for the task.

Much of that is a quirk of the military mandating a cartridge which can penetrate armour at 600m, for a rifle not really intended for use beyond 300m, both of which are issued to troops for use in urban warfare at ranges rarely above 100m.

I don't know, I see many complaints about the M4 not having the muzzle velocity to be useful and the M16 having too much muzzle velocity.

Comparing like for like in a different way then, and a scenario maybe more likely for a civilian spree shooter who puts a bit of thought into it, 9mm softpoint vs .223 softpoint at point-blank range. The .223 is way ahead. You'd need .44magnum softpoint to be close.

A .223 semi-auto rifle is about as easy to shoot as a super-soaker, has the wallop of a .44 magnum and the capacity and rate of fire of a paintball gun.
Letting 18yr-olds fresh out of homeschool buy something like that no questions asked and no training is madness.

Pretty much all of the people I've talked to that are in favor of gun restrictions/bans don't know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic (in fact, I believe in GB that they call semi-automatic weapons automatic which escalates the confusion), and think they are the same thing. Our left-leaning media does a very good job obscuring the difference between the two while pounding on that fear button. Or you have people like the Australians who read somewhere that 'assault rifles' are easily converted to automatic, nevermind that you need a machine shop to do so, and that if you possessed a machine shop you could fabricate your own automatic weapon without a whole lot of effort...

'Semi-automatic' is a relatively new term.
Historically any firearm which rechambers a round has been called an 'Automatic', and fully automatic weapons called 'machine-guns', not just in the UK. For example the 1911 pistol

wiki wrote:

The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1

Yo don't need a machine shop, just a file and a few other hand tools and patience if you know what you're doing.

According to Arrsepedia you could convert an SLR to full auto with a matchstick

Thing is the military trains its soldiers to fire semi-automatic, which makes saying that a semi-auto only weapon is not the same kind of moot. To me an assault weapon is anything that was originally designed for combat, to be used in assaulting a target on the move, your rifles, LMGs, MMGs. Doesn't matter if they were auto, semi or x-burst, they were-and are-still used primarily for attacking targets. I've seen pictures of SF guys carrying MP5s inside the wire, something they'd never take out with them. They use the rifle outside for attacking, the short range weapon inside for self-defence. The only difference between the M4/M16 and the civvie AR-15s is that the former have selective fire used mostly as a last resort. Or do all soldiers go full auto these days?

A weapon for self-defence is something with short range, a pistol. You'd only use one in combat if your enemy were close. I've read up about .50 gunners who had better luck in tight streets with an M9 than using the gun. Now in your everyday civvie environment, with buildings obstructing range, people around, a rifle is absolutely pointless. The only class of weapons people should have for self-defence are handguns and some types of shotgun. Anything else is far beyond anything ever needed unless you're planning an Arlington Road and waiting for HRT to arrive.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

You're argument doesn't matter, bear arms and such.

Should go back to what was actually in mind at the time, flintlocks and muskets.

Or the alternate interpretation.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Just a thought, do you think bears would be hunted to extinction by everyone in America screaming that a ages old piece of paper told them it was their right?

At a guess, I'd say yes. Or at least very close.

yeah objects made to kill people are 'sexy'. though i suppose they are phallic objects...

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-22 12:41:21)