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

Adams_BJ wrote:

Can you, as an every day citizen, openly carry a loaded weapon of any variety into a domestic airport?

You can. and then proceed to get butt raped by the TSA xD

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's an exaggeration to help illustrate the absurdity of your argument. You ask us what weapons we would want to ban? We ask you what the limit should be to what we can own. So tell me, o great patriot: why can't I have a functional SAM launcher in my back yard in case of tyranny? It would help a lot more than an assault rifle or even five Rugers, and I shouldn't even have to go through a background check for it. And which one of your numerous "Marine buddies" do I have to contact to get a pair of miniguns installed in my '87 Ramcharger?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Nope

Airports are privately owned, as are the jets. The owner of the establishment and air vehicles is allowed to restrict whatever he so chooses from his property.

Yes but if he can restrict guns, he can restrict religion, gender, free speech and all the rest! Better get your assault rifle.

It is his establishment and if he wants to restrict religion, gender, free speech, etc. on his property it is his right (if I understood law correctly) since he owns it.

You tell me what's more unreasonable UN13, me wanting an assault rifle or you wanting a fully functional SAM?

What about an international terminal, can I carry one there?

0) Take cover, Marines! He's from the internet and he learned his shooting form from web forums!
1) Providing examples you don't at least understand within reason isn't usually the best course of action.
2) Yes, an absurd exaggeration of an absurd ideal.

"right to bear arms"

arm n
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

While the definition emphasizes firearms, it does not exclude other weapons. Things like bombs are already regulated (obviously), so if you don't have a problem with that, the liberal foot is already in the door to regulate other weapons as well.

So if you don't want to control guns, where's the problem?

My problem are the "reasons" people provide for wanting to hoard specific kinds of weapons. "Because I want it." "Because it's cool." "Because the gumment gunna try an' take em away." I haven't seen a one of them that was backed by sound logic and some of them have made me want to back away slowly with my hands slightly raised. Statements like "I hope I get to kill someone before I die" and "I hope there's a civil war and they try to take my guns away; I'll take them down with me!" Really? Wishing for strife? Bleh. These are some of the people who shouldn't own weapons at all.

I didn't say I was against gun control; I said I was more against the stereotypical wingnuts who frequently oppose it with the same recycled arguments. As for gun control, I don't fall into the "ban scary weapons because they look scary" crowd, but placing restrictions an certain characteristics make sense to me. Automatics? No-brainer. Ridiculously-high magazine capacity? Check. Certain ammunition types (incendiary, flechette, etc.)? Certainly. Harsher scrutiny in background checks? Absolutely. While there's no such thing as a leak-proof net (black markets, etc.), I think profiles shouldn't just be checked for the person buying a gun, but for the people he or she live with. Proper etiquette, maintenance and use training should be mandatory so gun owners don't have to post pictures of themselves posing with guns to get advice on proper stances, and will be less likely to shoot themselves or a loved one because of their own dumb recklessness. I also think that gun safe registration should be criteria for any successful background check.

Since an assault rifle isn't going to defend you against oppressive martial law under a corrupt tyrant by any stretch of the imagination, the bottomline comes down to: "what do you really need to defend yourself, target practice or hunt with?"

^ but murrica f*ck u i do wat i want!

You don't just take away somebody's weapons because you don't want them to own one. You don't take away somebody's weapons because you think they don't need them.

Shifty you need to draw the distinction between regulating a weapon and taking away a weapon. They're not the same thing.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Which guns should we restrict?

Its simple really. All of them.

You want a 22 rifle? Pretty easy, you want a pistol? a little harder, you want a semi auto? Harder again.

Every step up you go, another layer of requirements. You can say "well thats just amking it harder for the every day law abiding american!" Yeah? Well so what? Stop being lazy. you want it then you can get it, provided you are eligible

How would you determine who is eligible, and why does it need to be harder for me to get a .223 AR15 over a .22 rifle? They're both semiautomatic weapons with 5 to 30 round magazines depending on the magazine you put in it. I can still kill somebody with a .22 just as easily as an AR-15.

You think a .22 and a 5.56 NATO are just as dangerous or lethal?

Well damn, all the Armies of the world are wrong and should re-equip themselves with .22s.

Neither of them are necessary. As far as I'm concerned any U.S. citizen that is not mentally unstable/ill should be able to purchase anything from a .22 single action revolver to a .50 cal M2

Of course, there's hardly any difference in lethality or firepower between



and



If you really think every 18 year old fresh out of homeschool should be able to buy the latter then you're dumber than I thought, which was already very dumb.

Cybargs wrote:

you have to include the fact that most people can't afford to shoot nor purchase a ma duece.

Exactly my point. It costs like 50k to get a fully automatic weapon here in the US. Most of my friends have cheap shotguns or a 22.

Nah Dilbert I don't think a .22 and a .223 are the same but I could kill somebody easily with either of them.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Here is a very good article. I am way too optimistic about any of you possibly reading it. You're all such die-hard "Gun owners are rednecks" activists that I doubt you'll take the time to read it but here it is anyway.

Forbes Magazine - Disarming the myths promoted by the gun control lobby.

Your article has no mention whatsoever about assault rifles, which is the thing that has been brought up here numerous times. Your answer to that is "because it's fun and in the constitution and TYRANNY so FUCK YOU".

You fail to comprehend the discussion at hand. No one is saying "ban all guns" like you are passionately proclaiming. The question is: at what point does gun ownership become superfluous, ie. why do you need an assault rifle?

Why should it be superfluous? Imagine something you don't consider a problem, it can be anything at all; now imagine somebody wants to make it harder for you to get/eventually ban you from owning said thing. How would you react? I am pissed off because IIRC it is illegal to purchase an assault rifle in California. So yes, they are being banned even if you aren't saying they are.

I'm saying I want to own an assault rifle, my reason doesn't matter; you're saying I don't need one but that isn't up for you or the government to decide. I'm trying to understand why people advocate gun control when there isn't a need for it.

This argument is more suited to pro-choice and gay marriage than it is gun control. Do you support the rights of pregnant women and love between homosexual couples?

I have no qualms with a mature, experienced person handling an AR-15. But for someone who can't even legally buy beer? lol, no. Even then I still haven't seen any argument that supports the need to own one. Handguns? Discreet self-defence. Shotguns? Home defence. Hunting rifles? Obvious. Assault rifles? Because they're fun... lol. Go to a shooting range.

Also, saying there isn't a need for gun control is just silly. You're seeing it in this simple, idealistic world where everything is black and white rather than along a continuum.

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-29 01:05:35)

Dilbert_X wrote:

M2s are $50k because they're restricted, there's no reason why they should cost more than ~$2k, the price of a nice .22 pistol.

.50s and.223s are more dangerous and more lethal than .22lr. Shut up now.

.22 for 2k? wtf

If you want to get rid of gun violence, target the cheap guns throwaways like hi-points

Jaekus wrote:

This argument is more suited to pro-choice and gay marriage than it is gun control. Do you support the rights of pregnant women and love between homosexual couples?

I have no qualms with a mature, experienced person handling an AR-15. But for someone who can't even legally buy beer? lol, no. Even then I still haven't seen any argument that supports the need to own one. Handguns? Discreet self-defence. Shotguns? Home defence. Hunting rifles? Obvious. Assault rifles? Because they're fun... lol. Go to a shooting range.

Also, saying there isn't a need for gun control is just silly. You're seeing it in this simple, idealistic world where everything is black and white rather than along a continuum.

I am pro-life.

I don't think the government should be able to say who can and cannot marry. If the couple happens to be homosexual that's not my place to say whether they should or shouldn't get married. cause freedom that's why

What do you define the "rights" of a pregnant woman as?

In my opinion if you want to buy a firearm, you should be able to purchase any type as long as you consent to a background check of mental health and criminal history. If you have been mentally unstable or ill or if you have violent criminal history you should not be allowed to purchase a weapon. "Because they're fun" is a perfect reason to own an assault rifle. A honda civic? Convenient, a Mitsubishi evu? cool, an f350 pickup? convenient, a lamburghini? because it's fun...

Your argument against owning an assault rifle having to be a NECESSITY to justify owning one is ridiculous. In the name of what? Less violent crime? I could go out and kill people with a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle.