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

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

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.

nope, you're wrong.  So no, they aren't banned.  They are *GASP* regulated though - 10 round mag, bullet button to release the mag from the gun.  Hardly tyranny-inducing regulations

Ken, please tell me why my "Assault weapons" need to be regulated.

It is illegal to purchase an assault weapon in California unless you are law enforcement so yes they are banned.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

TBH thats a troll argument cl4u53w1t2

i beg to differ

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

TBH thats a troll argument cl4u53w1t2

i beg to differ

Ok, I'll humor you, (keeping in mind that I think a woman should be able to abort, within reason.). Why is the baby better off dead.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

TBH thats a troll argument cl4u53w1t2

i beg to differ

Ok, I'll humor you, (keeping in mind that I think a woman should be able to abort, within reason.). Why is the baby better off dead.

that should be pretty clear. how good will your life be when you know that you only exist because some drunk lowlife raped your mother...?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

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.

nope, you're wrong.  So no, they aren't banned.  They are *GASP* regulated though - 10 round mag, bullet button to release the mag from the gun.  Hardly tyranny-inducing regulations

Ken, please tell me why my "Assault weapons" need to be regulated.

It is illegal to purchase an assault weapon in California unless you are law enforcement so yes they are banned.

It's not illegal to purchase an AR in California.  I've been doing research on it for the last 6 months.  As I've mentioned, I think I've settled on an S&W M&P 15-22 Sport. Here's something very close (notice the "California Compliant" designation - meaning it is in accordance with CA law, meaning it can be....purchased in California).  Do a research, n00b.

Your weapons (including 'assault weapons' and pistols) need to be regulated because limiting the magazine capacity and impacting the reload time through the use of bullet buttons does little to inconvenience the average gun owner but means a lot in a prospective mass shooting.  Affecting the reload times and magazine count means I have to spend a little more time at the shooting range reloading my weapon.  Boo hoo.  It potentially could mean that instead of sociopath #1 firing 60 rounds into a crowded stadium in 20 seconds, he fires 10 rounds into a crowded stadium in 20 seconds.  Yes, it doesn't stop the crime from happening, but it severely limits the capability of a mass shooter to inflict damage, while causing the average shooter such a minimal inconvenience that to oppose it is just being absolutely hard-headed and a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

M.O.A.B wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

nope, you're wrong.  So no, they aren't banned.  They are *GASP* regulated though - 10 round mag, bullet button to release the mag from the gun.  Hardly tyranny-inducing regulations

Ken, please tell me why my "Assault weapons" need to be regulated.

It is illegal to purchase an assault weapon in California unless you are law enforcement so yes they are banned.

Do you specifically need a weapon falling into an assault category to defend yourself? The right you have was written at a time when people defended themsleves with single shot, muzzle loaded weapons. I think a semi-auto handgun restricted to 10 rounds is more than enough to defend yourself with. As for facing off with the government, never gonna happen. Last I saw there were something like 80,000 members of a so-called militia. Most will be fat, beer-belly types who with their light rifles will last maybe ten seconds against any trained military force.

An armed revolution is never going to happen, hence outside of a target range, no need for a civilian to be packing a rifle that with a few tweaks can be fully automatic, equipped with optics to improve accuracy over range or operation at night, a can to knock the report down quite a way, and AP ammunition.

what if you need to defend yourself from mexican cartels yo, they got some massive firepower.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

It may be a dark spot, but not worth living over? Really? Somebody I never met did something terrible, so I'm better off dead. That really doesn't make sense.

you're that person's spawn

And this means what? You commited the rape?

Cybargs wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

An armed revolution is never going to happen, hence outside of a target range, no need for a civilian to be packing a rifle that with a few tweaks can be fully automatic, equipped with optics to improve accuracy over range or operation at night, a can to knock the report down quite a way, and AP ammunition.

I don't think AP ammunition is necessary, but suppressors and optics have their legitimate uses in hunting, etc.

nobody needs to shoot past 300 metres. I mean most shootings happen with rifles that have optics, 30 round mags and surpressors with full auto capability.

dat sarcasm.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I think the US citizens would have a chance today as they did back then. Why? Because I don't know a single person in the US military that would raise up arms against the US people. The military general supports freedom of the US not tyranny.

tell that to the people who were shot by the national guard. they were shooting college kids and black people like its cool

Armed overthrow of the government?

Do people really believe this would happen in America, seriously?

It's paranoia.

AussieReaper wrote:

Armed overthrow of the government?

Only if it's good for the proletariat! Down with the bourgeois!

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Obviously the military would protect our people from crazies like the situation you explained.

yeah those crazy college kids with their flowers really put up a challenge against the national guard! they had those crazy flower power shit, force was justified!

No, I said the military would stand up for the people who need protection. I did not say they would fire on innocent college students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

where was ze military?