thought that was a very interesting video. a very true, interesting video that most of these anit 2nd Amendment people should watch.... please make it a point to at least watch from 8:25 on.... if you dont watch that then at LEAST watch 9:40 onward...
ah yes.
because all of us are gunsmiths... wait, what
yes. If you have the plans to do it, and the tools to do it, and the know how to do it, and dont care about going to prision... then yes, it CAN happen.
i was talking about this with a guy at work. i showed him a pic of my wasr 10, he said something to the effect that i am a crazy nut job who shouldent be allowed to own guns, and that at least that one should be taken away from me because it is a "Fully automatic Assault weapon" and that someone would break into my house and steal it then use it to commit a crime.
no... i would hold them untill the police showed up..
i would however shoot (not needing to kill, just to halt) them if they tried to harm me or my family. because i, unlike the coworker, have that ability.
i asked him what he would do in a situation where someone broke into his house. "call the cops" he said, to which i replied "ok, and what do you do for the next 10-15 mins it takes for them to show up??? hide under the bed and hope they dont find your defenless "
man, that was ripping good laugh listing to him talk about his views on guns.
"What do you want us to use, harsh language?" Corporal Snow on being told not to use his M141 pulse rifle on the as yet unseen Aliens, shortly before harsh language proved strikingly ineffective against said Aliens....
*complete ignoramus warning:*
what are the current restrictions on canadian firearms? I'd really like to know, as I would like to have a historical gun collection some day... I wants me a luger.
This is a great presentation, and I'm absolutely satisfied that I took the ten minutes to watch it. I've been studying firearms for going on 15 years now, and I have had many opportunities to discuss the exact subject this gentleman is speaking of.
Personally, I would find it interesting to take a picture of a mini-14 with a wooden stock, and another picture of the same firearm with polymer parts and a folding stock, and ask a random group of people if each one is or is not an "assault rifle". My money would be that most people, assuming you just randomly selected them off the street, would say the polymer rifle is an assault rifle, more frequently than they would say the same for the traditional looking rifle.
People are deciding how to define something without any real knowledge about the subject.
Why was a bayonet mount illegal to purchase ( assuming it wasn't grandfathered in )? Does a knife on the end of the weapon really make it more dangerous than it is? That is the question I've always wanted an answer to.
Good ole second amendment thread! People think guns are bad because they are used to kill people, get over it. Most American's won't purchase a firearm simply because they have a right to either so they won't really pay attention to what guns are what. Some shoot fast some shoot slow. I'm the same way, I'll probably never own more than a handgun. I'd totally shoot anyone that broke into my house or attacked me/my family/friends (In some cases). And none of this "But not to kill anybody, that's wrong!" bull either. I'd be aiming for chest/head shots.
How about a limit on guns, like a hand gun for defense and a rifle for hunting, I'm not anti gun i'm anti assault weapon. Where i come from most people had guns (got my first when i was 12) it was 1992 and gangbanging was in style. Most of my old buddies are dead now. Is it wrong for me to want tighter gun control, not a ban. I'm all for everybody having a hand gun, but I've seen what for guys with semi- in a speeding car can do. Can't there be a comprimise?
yes... people can stop being slowed gangbangers, get a high school education, then either go onto collage, join the milltary, or work.
and to all you people out there saying "but collage is to expensive what if you cant afford it?".... last time i checked, the army, navy, marines, air force, national guard, ect, ect, pays for collage right? not to mention that 4 years in the armed forces looks good on a resume.
i honestly have no pitty for people who are in a bad situation when there is a way out, but they chose not to take it because it would be a little work.
Grignard wrote:This is a great presentation, and I'm absolutely satisfied that I took the ten minutes to watch it. I've been studying firearms for going on 15 years now, and I have had many opportunities to discuss the exact subject this gentleman is speaking of.
Personally, I would find it interesting to take a picture of a mini-14 with a wooden stock, and another picture of the same firearm with polymer parts and a folding stock, and ask a random group of people if each one is or is not an "assault rifle". My money would be that most people, assuming you just randomly selected them off the street, would say the polymer rifle is an assault rifle, more frequently than they would say the same for the traditional looking rifle.
People are deciding how to define something without any real knowledge about the subject.
Why was a bayonet mount illegal to purchase ( assuming it wasn't grandfathered in )? Does a knife on the end of the weapon really make it more dangerous than it is? That is the question I've always wanted an answer to.
Typeline wrote: Good ole second amendment thread! People think guns are bad because they are used to kill people, get over it. Most American's won't purchase a firearm simply because they have a right to either so they won't really pay attention to what guns are what. Some shoot fast some shoot slow. I'm the same way, I'll probably never own more than a handgun. I'd totally shoot anyone that broke into my house or attacked me/my family/friends (In some cases). And none of this "But not to kill anybody, that's wrong!" bull either. I'd be aiming for chest/head shots.
I used to keep an axe handy in case someone tried to break into my house. However I thought that was excessive so I got a small baseball bat instead.
Envy89 wrote:i honestly have no pitty for people who are in a bad situation when there is a way out, but they chose not to take it because it would be a little work.
There's a difference between a little work and subjecting yourself to a fascistic organization that runs the risk of getting you killed. And if you object to the description, you have no real appreciation of the difference between civilian and military life.
Envy89 wrote:
yes... people can stop being slowed gangbangers, get a high school education, then either go onto collage, join the milltary, or work.
and to all you people out there saying "but collage is to expensive what if you cant afford it?".... last time i checked, the army, navy, marines, air force, national guard, ect, ect, pays for collage right? not to mention that 4 years in the armed forces looks good on a resume.
i honestly have no pitty for people who are in a bad situation when there is a way out, but they chose not to take it because it would be a little work.
Before ranting about ignorance it would be best to learn the proper spelling of the word 'college.'
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that, and then tell me about how little pity you have for the disadvantaged. Let us also not forget about how little the military actually pays those who have enlisted, and how difficult it is to transition from the enlisted world to the civilian one; both socially and economically.
dogma wrote:
Before ranting about ignorance it would be best to learn the proper spelling of the word 'college.'
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that
They way im going i could get an education for 4 years for 50k.
In reality it is never impossible to get an education. One just has to work hard enough and the ability to work hard enough to get what one wants.
On topic, guns would be great if people only used to defend themselves, but people can sometimes use said "defensive" guns when they go angry/crazy any kill their entire family. Legislation doesn't really help crime related firearms deaths and usually those guns are not bought legally in the first place.
A college education isn't the only way to get a decent job, there are trade jobs and the like as well.
But the difficulties with pulling yourself out of a disadvantaged background aren't purely financial. Those other opportunities like apprenticeships are harder to come by, living in poorer areas there are simply fewer to be accessed. It's also harder to take opportunities when they come along, as you're less likely to know how to present yourself. It's also harder to know how to set about developing a career, when you probably know a lot less people who achieved similarly. And also, people tend to do what their parents did, and what they're friends are doing now.
There are lots of reasons that people from disadvantaged areas are less likely to develop successful careers.
dogma wrote:
Before ranting about ignorance it would be best to learn the proper spelling of the word 'college.'
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that
They way im going i could get an education for 4 years for 50k.
In reality it is never impossible to get an education. One just has to work hard enough and the ability to work hard enough to get what one wants.
On topic, guns would be great if people only used to defend themselves, but people can sometimes use said "defensive" guns when they go angry/crazy any kill their entire family. Legislation doesn't really help crime related firearms deaths and usually those guns are not bought legally in the first place.
Will: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f---n education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
However, school is also a job networking place on top of an education, so you still have
an advantage over library only guy. Not true in all places and for all jobs, but true enough.
1st. you go to 2 years of junior college. then 2 years at regular.... might be over 50K but o well, you got to earn your keep.
2nd. yes i know the milltary runs the chance of getting you killed... but then again, so dose that ganbanger life.... but unlike the gangbanger life. the milltary, gives you food, cloths, shelter, ect ect all the while they PAY you. granted the paycheck isent much (and its about to be even less now that the lord obama and the rats have full controll of government) but factor in all the benfits you get and it come out to something a little bit better.
and C. i know the milltary is hard work... but hay, 4 years in the navy can land you a boiler opperator job that pays around $30 an hour.
still dont want to do it then trade schools are great. they not only offer $$ aid, but most even help you find a job when your done....
back on topic.
that is an interesitng idea grignard, i might try out. take a picture of my converted SKS, then film myself taking it appart and putting it back in wodden stock. then take a picture of it in the wodden stock.
next ill walk around to people and ask "Which one is the assult weapon". when people point at the converted one, i will show them the video of me taking the gun appart and putting it in the wodden stock. then ask why they were so scared of the one with the black plastic stock......
I know, same over here. I've always assumed the reason that bayonet drills are still done is a matter of tradition as much as anything. Does anyone here who is in the military have an opinion on this? It just seems unlikely to me that bayonets actually get used on other human beings much anymore, though I'm certainly open to correction from who really knows, US military or others.
dogma wrote:Before ranting about ignorance it would be best to learn the proper spelling of the word 'college.'
Please don't be pedantic, no one likes that. A piddling spelling error has nothing to do with the "meat" of someone's post.
Envy89 wrote:
mabey ill post the results
That would be quite interesting. Just be careful not to use your expectation of the outcome ( Even though I think you're correct ) to color how you do this, if you do. Its easy to lead people to get the answers you want.
Envy89 wrote:1st. you go to 2 years of junior college. then 2 years at regular.... might be over 50K but o well, you got to earn your keep.
This is assuming you can qualify for the additional loans necessary to pay for over-run.
Envy89 wrote:
2nd. yes i know the milltary runs the chance of getting you killed... but then again, so dose that ganbanger life.... but unlike the gangbanger life. the milltary, gives you food, cloths, shelter, ect ect all the while they PAY you. granted the paycheck isent much (and its about to be even less now that the lord obama and the rats have full controll of government) but factor in all the benfits you get and it come out to something a little bit better.
They pay you, but not nearly enough to realistically enable any given individual to derive any kind of real savings. This is especially true of foreign, non-combat deployments where much of the services which should be provided as standard are charged to the individual soldier.
Envy89 wrote:
and C. i know the milltary is hard work... but hay, 4 years in the navy can land you a boiler opperator job that pays around $30 an hour.
still dont want to do it then trade schools are great. they not only offer $$ aid, but most even help you find a job when your done....
Trade schools are great. We need to do away with the social stigma that surrounds them. And they need to offer instruction on the ancillary skills that are necessary to make a living in their application. Things like basic accounting, business law, and the tax code.
dogma wrote:Before ranting about ignorance it would be best to learn the proper spelling of the word 'college.'
Please don't be pedantic, no one likes that. A piddling spelling error has nothing to do with the "meat" of someone's post.
When the error is repeated I feel it can be used to emphasize the foolishness of assuming the people that find it difficult to better themselves might be a little bit more than 'ignorant gangbangers'.
dogma wrote:Before ranting about ignorance it would be best to learn the proper spelling of the word 'college.'
Please don't be pedantic, no one likes that. A piddling spelling error has nothing to do with the "meat" of someone's post.
When the error is repeated I feel it can be used to emphasize the foolishness of assuming the people that find it difficult to better themselves might be a little bit more than 'ignorant gangbangers'.
Eh...I feel that the claim needs to be evaluated on its own and the spelling error in no way "emphasizes" the supposed foolishness of the argument. I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but the criticism had nothing to do with persuasion.
It is going to be an interesting and disturbing day 10-15 years into the future when home 3D printing comes of age and people can print out any weapon they can conceive, including moving parts. Ammo might be a bit of a challenge but there will certainly be a surge in crazy bladed weapons and spring loaded, short ranged weapons. Still, at least we'll all be safe at home printing off wargaming models!
Envy89: yes... people can stop being slowed gangbangers, get a high school education, then either go onto collage, join the milltary, or work
. . .
I'm just guessing you've had little or no personal contact with gangs or how they operate, or why the exist in the first place.
and the fact many people in gangs use money earned in said gangs to go to college, law being one of the leading professional choices
just as there is slanted media about guns there is slated media about gangs
retards don't last long in gangs
Legoburner: Still, at least we'll all be safe at home printing off wargaming models!
legoburner wrote:It is going to be an interesting and disturbing day 10-15 years into the future when home 3D printing comes of age and people can print out any weapon they can conceive, including moving parts. Ammo might be a bit of a challenge but there will certainly be a surge in crazy bladed weapons and spring loaded, short ranged weapons. Still, at least we'll all be safe at home printing off wargaming models!
Your vision of the future is dark and frightening.
I know, same over here. I've always assumed the reason that bayonet drills are still done is a matter of tradition as much as anything. Does anyone here who is in the military have an opinion on this? It just seems unlikely to me that bayonets actually get used on other human beings much anymore, though I'm certainly open to correction from who really knows, US military or others.
...
...
I read a book on this topic called "Forward Into Battle" by Paddy Griffiths. He is a military historian, wargamer and lecturer at Sandhurst.
His theory is that infantry have to maintain an offensive spirit and be able to keep moving in the attack in order to drive enemies out of their positions. While developments in modern warfare (e.g. the machine-gun) have made it suicidal to simply run at the enemy, it is still the essential job of infantry to close with the enemy and beat them in morale terms. This cannot be done by firepower alone, it requires tactics and a proper offensive mindset. The continued use of the bayonet is to help maintain the offensive spirit, even if the tactics used are modern.
yes... people can stop being slowed gangbangers, get a high school education, then either go onto collage, join the milltary, or work.
and to all you people out there saying "but collage is to expensive what if you cant afford it?".... last time i checked, the army, navy, marines, air force, national guard, ect, ect, pays for collage right? not to mention that 4 years in the armed forces looks good on a resume.
i honestly have no pitty for people who are in a bad situation when there is a way out, but they chose not to take it because it would be a little work.
So any ways. A ban on full auto I think is a good idea, maybe require a mental exanimation, extensive background check, and require the passing of courses to get one.
The ban of high cap mags is slowed unless you change the def of high cap to 30 rounds. There are an insane amount of 20 and 30 round mags out there. You honestly think people will turn them in?? I am planning on sitting on my two 30 round AK mags, and buying some 10 and 5 rounders. If they become illegal.
The ban of semi auto is slowed (even with grandfathering). that would make lots of guns out there illegal to own.
What part of "Shall not be infringed upon" doesn’t the government get?? This is like GW saying your right to own an IG army shall not be infringed..... But you can’t own ANY tanks.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Please note. Banning full auto is not “Infringing” on anyone’s right to own.
You can still own an AK-47. It must be Semi auto, but you can still own one.
There is even a drum or belt fed MG-42 semi auto that you can buy.
Envy89 wrote:So any ways. A ban on full auto I think is a good idea, maybe require a mental exanimation, extensive background check, and require the passing of courses to get one.
The background check is already done, and I'm definitely for requiring firearms training for ownership, though a lot of the lobbyists are against it. I'm not going to agree with having to submit to a "mental examination" in order to purchase a firearm. Who is going to administer these exams? Is every gun store going to hire a Psychiatrist to be on call? How do you judge passing or failing?
The idea that all mentally ill ( as a general category of illness, the case can be made for certain specific illnesses) people are dangerous is an idea that doesn't have a lot of evidence supporting it. In fact, the mentally ill, particularly the homeless, are much more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. However, there is, of course, an issue with suicide. I guess it depends on how you feel about that.
Whether or not you need to be keeping the mentally ill away from weapons is not really the point. The real issue is that the laws that are currently regulating that are non specific, unclear, and stigmatizing. This is one reason why I'm a little angry with the NRA right now, they've pretty much allied with people who are ok with laws which define people as "mental defective" ( Yes, that is actually a checkbox on the form you have to fill out when you purchase a firearm in my state, Are you a mental defective?). Basically to buy breathing space they've sold out one set of rights for another.
Envy89 wrote:So any ways. A ban on full auto I think is a good idea, maybe require a mental exanimation, extensive background check, and require the passing of courses to get one.
The ban of high cap mags is slowed unless you change the def of high cap to 30 rounds. There are an insane amount of 20 and 30 round mags out there. You honestly think people will turn them in?? I am planning on sitting on my two 30 round AK mags, and buying some 10 and 5 rounders. If they become illegal.
The ban of semi auto is slowed (even with grandfathering). that would make lots of guns out there illegal to own.
What part of "Shall not be infringed upon" doesn’t the government get?? This is like GW saying your right to own an IG army shall not be infringed..... But you can’t own ANY tanks.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Please note. Banning full auto is not “Infringing” on anyone’s right to own.
You can still own an AK-47. It must be Semi auto, but you can still own one.
There is even a drum or belt fed MG-42 semi auto that you can buy.
Are you telling me that everyone out there who already own these magazines would not voluntarily forfeit them to the government, that the legislation would only make millions of law abiding citizens criminals? I'm shocked, just shocked
Envy89 wrote:Please note. Banning full auto is not “Infringing” on anyone’s right to own.
You can still own an AK-47. It must be Semi auto, but you can still own one.
There is even a drum or belt fed MG-42 semi auto that you can buy.
That’s some pretzel logic going on there. Second up, you can’t claim semi-auto weapons as inherent to the constitution, but not full-auto. The amendment makes no comment on either. Claiming that you can own a semi-auto AK-47, and therefore your right to own AK-47s is not breached makes no sense. There is no inherent right to own specific weapons, the amendment gives you the right to bear arms to ensure political freedoms – what matters is capacity, not weapon type. Once you accept that right is not absolute (which you’ve done by accepting no fully auto weapons) you have to accept the exact line in the sand is a hard one to define.
Also, you need to stop pretending there is no point between ‘absolute ban, hand in all infringing items tomorrow’ and ‘let ‘em buy it freely’. If certain magazine capacities are deemed excessive, you can ban future sales while leaving what is out there. Or you can ban a weapon type, but only penalise its use when it is part of another crime.
And look, I don’t think further restrictions on guns are going to achieve anything. The best way forward is to properly enforce the laws you already have, and look to the underlying causes of much gun violence (drugs, gangs, paranoia). I’m not calling you on your arguments because I ideologically opposed, I’m calling you on your arguments because they make no sense.
Envy89 wrote:Please note. Banning full auto is not “Infringing” on anyone’s right to own.
You can still own an AK-47. It must be Semi auto, but you can still own one.
There is even a drum or belt fed MG-42 semi auto that you can buy.
That’s some pretzel logic going on there. Second up, you can’t claim semi-auto weapons as inherent to the constitution, but not full-auto. The amendment makes no comment on either. Claiming that you can own a semi-auto AK-47, and therefore your right to own AK-47s is not breached makes no sense. There is no inherent right to own specific weapons, the amendment gives you the right to bear arms to ensure political freedoms – what matters is capacity, not weapon type. Once you accept that right is not absolute (which you’ve done by accepting no fully auto weapons) you have to accept the exact line in the sand is a hard one to define.
I have to agree with sebster here. Unfortunately the fact is that any sort of limitation is sort of arbitrary. There is nothing that says that banning the autoloading rifle is infringing, while banning the fully auto rifle is not infringing.
Also, for what it is worth, it is legal to own a fully automatic weapon in Tennessee if certain conditions are met. The law gets exceedingly complex here, and I haven't really read enough of that particular aspect to really tell you anything about it. I do know it has more to do with manufacturing dates of the weapons rather than the nature of the weapons themselves. If anyone knows a bit more about the specifics of this one please tell us. Doesn't matter to me though, because I can't afford to do that sort of shooting. There are competitive shooting matches with these sorts of weapons, btw.
I'm not suggesting a change in the law, necessarily, but I think this is a good time to point out that one of the first "spree" type killings in the United States was primarily performed with a Remington 700 rifle. Actually, it is the very model of rifle I have sitting in my closet right now, though it is chambered in a different caliber. Not only does it not fire continuously if you hold the trigger down, but you have to manually operate the bolt to extract a spent round and chamber another.
John F. Kennedy was also killed with a similar rifle, which again required manual cycling before another round could be fired.
Also worth noting was that both of these events involved trained shooters. Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, Lee Harvey Oswald was an accomplished marksman.
if you ban semi auto, you are banning millions of guns.... infringing on peoples right.
if you ban full auto, you are not banning any one weapon from being bought.... just the full auto version of it... want an MG-42, just go to the link i provided in my last post want an AK-47, century arms can sell you a perfectly legal one
you are right, the amendment dosnet make a comment on either. probly because at the time, 5 rounds a min was lighting fast shooting...
now me personaly, i think people should be able to get full auto... why you ask.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
now obviously, having the population of the mental ward of a prision running around with full AK-47 ranks right up there with in the catagory of good ideas.... exactly why i proposed a mental exam.
CaptainCommunsism wrote:*complete ignoramus warning:*
what are the current restrictions on canadian firearms? I'd really like to know, as I would like to have a historical gun collection some day... I wants me a luger.
Since no one answer you:
To have a firearm in canada, you need:
A -No violent criminal record.
B -A small training in firearm security
C -A reason
The valid reason are:
For a job (policeman, security...)
For hunting (riffle and shotgun)
For sports (riffle, shotgun and pistol)
for collection
Of course, you cannot ask a policeman license if your not in the police, a hunting license if you did not pass the hunting security test, a handgun license if you are not member of a gun club...
So yes, you will most probably be able to have a luger.
if you ban semi auto, you are banning millions of guns.... infringing on peoples right.
if you ban full auto, you are not banning any one weapon from being bought.... just the full auto version of it... want an MG-42, just go to the link i provided in my last post want an AK-47, century arms can sell you a perfectly legal one
you are right, the amendment dosnet make a comment on either. probly because at the time, 5 rounds a min was lighting fast shooting...
That’s right, there’s no distinction in the constitution, so you can’t argue it on that grounds. But note the constitution doesn’t care one whit about your right to own a certain type of gun. It makes no mention of Brown Bess or Kentucky Long Rifles because they have nothing to do with the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is for the beneficial effects of gun ownership – self defence, protection from government, all those good things. That means the primary defining element is the capability of the weapon, not its type.
now me personaly, i think people should be able to get full auto... why you ask.
Then argue for that. Then your point would be consistent, if nothing else.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Which falls into those wonderful political principles that only has one slight problem – reality.
Envy89 wrote:
now obviously, having the population of the mental ward of a prision running around with full AK-47 ranks right up there with *image* in the catagory of good ideas.... exactly why i proposed a mental exam.
Now while I agree with your overall stance, I have to disagree with your specific point here. The statement that you would not want armed people running around the mental ward of a prison ( does such a thing exist) doesn't have anything to do with a mental exam being a good idea or not.
My point is that it would be difficult to provide mental exams to anyone buying a weapon. Would you go to a therapist to take the exam? Would you deliver the results to the FFL seller or to a state board? If you are supposed to take it to the seller, how does that work with health privacy laws ( Which I know, from my professional experience in public health, is a very big issue ). What exactly would disqualify you from firearm ownership. If you include ALL mental illness, including "minor" things, then you might be talking about a quarter of the country. Should someone with major depression not get a firearm? What about an anxiety disorder? What about someone who has ADHD? Who is going to judge this? I also think you need to show that mentally ill people, across the board, are more "dangerous" than other people. That is just not true, though I think you can make a case for suicide, which is a seperate argument.
The real problem is not the concept ( though I disagree with it for the most part ) but the way the laws are written. What exactly is a "mental defective"? I would love to see any modern medical source that defines what a "mental defective" is. This leads to the question of what exactly is meant, and is this an arbitrary decision made by someone. I'm a little angry, or actually completely furious, that the NRA would support something like this. It is simply a matter of selling out another group's rights and dignity for your own. Another one is that they want to make exceptions for veterans in these laws. What sense does that make? How is that fair? Now we have someone who is not only *supposedly* dangerous, but well trained. The bottom line is the laws need to at least be reworded.
would it be constutional for the governemnt to tell us the only legal gun is a muzzeling loading .22 single barrel rifel?? (dont think they make of one those... but just getting point accross)
they are still letting us own a gun... by your deffinition our right has not been infringed upon. after all, we can still own a gun.
@ grignard.
i am not saying exam for people buying semi auto. just for the full auto.
i can see the problems with it though. our current system needs some work. in my state (IL... ) i belive the only people who can legaly own a full auto gun is police (for police or personal use), and licnsed gun dealers.
I know, same over here. I've always assumed the reason that bayonet drills are still done is a matter of tradition as much as anything. Does anyone here who is in the military have an opinion on this? It just seems unlikely to me that bayonets actually get used on other human beings much anymore, though I'm certainly open to correction from who really knows, US military or others..
In the UK at least they insist upon training as in a tight spot they come in handy.
From elsewhere
WITH BAYONETS ATTACHED, THEY FINISHED OFF THE ENEMY WHO HAD NOT RUN AWAY..
May 21 2004
SCOTS TELL OF CHARGE
By Keith Mcleod And Michael Christie
SCOTS soldiers last night told how they launched a bayonet charge on Iraqi militiamen after hours of battle.
An Army insider last night gave the Record an insight into the bravery of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
They were forced to use 'cold steel' as supplies of ammunition ran low.
Many of the militiamen turned and fled but the close-quarters fighting left around 20 rebels dead.
Thirty-five of Shia Moslem cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers died and two British troops were injured during the three-hour battle.
A senior Argylls officer said last night: 'After a fierce fight and with small amounts of ammo left, they put in a conventional left-flanking attack.
'With bayonets attached, they finished off the enemy who had not run off.'
It was the first time in 22 years the Army had used bayonets in action.
The last came when the Scots Guards stormed Argentinian positions during the Falklands War.
The battle developed following a distress call from a group of eight British soldiers last Friday.
The troops under the command of Major Adam Griffiths were surrounded on the notorious Route Six highway while en route to Camp Abu Naji in southern Iraq. Their LandRovers were riddled with bullets and they came under attack from rocket launchers and grenades.
But as a 30-strong platoon of Argylls responded to the SOS, the militia were getting reinforcements.
The men from the Stirlingshire-based regiment were forced to dig in and shoot back.
The Argylls were aided by a detachment of the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment, who arrived at the scene in armoured Warrior vehicles.
More than 150 Iraqis were said to be involved in last week's battle. Military sources say the militiamen miscalculated the response from the original group of soldiers.
Last night, a source said: 'Morale is very good following this serious incident.
'The insurgents have been laying ambushes on Route Six one of the main roads between Basra and Baghdad for some time.
'Previously, the response from small British groups has been drive on. These militiamen were obviously expecting this to happen again.
'The enemy have been picking their targets, mainly two LandRovers with six to eight soldiers on board. With those odds, it is sometimes best to keep on going, but the attack was so sustained, the LandRovers stopped and returned fire.
'We now hope that these attacks on Route Six will stop, but we are taking nothing for granted.'
Intelligence gathered since the bayonet charge suggests it shocked the militia fighters, who expected the outnumbered Scots to flee.
The source added: 'The injuries received by our troops were shrapnel to the hand and shrapnel to the groin. Both of these casualties were as a result of rocket-propelled grenades fired at them.
'Both the injured guys are back with their units and doing fine.'
The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment arrived on the scene in 37ton Warriors just as the Scots' ammo was getting low.
They found many Iraqi militia fleeing the bayonet charge.
Around 20 Iraqis who chose to stand and fight were killed by the troops of both regiments.
The Argylls' forebears formed The Thin Red Line which kept 25,000 Russians at bay at Balaclava during the Crimean War of the 1850s.
In 1967, Argylls commander Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell known as Mad Mitch stormed a rebel stronghold in Yemen.
Accompanied only by 15 pipers playing Scotland The Brave, he recaptured Crater Town, the commercial heart of Aden, which had been in enemy hands for two weeks.
dogma wrote:Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that...
My wife just did, as did her entire flight, so don't feed us that BS.
dogma wrote:Let us also not forget about how little the military actually pays those who have enlisted, and how difficult it is to transition from the enlisted world to the civilian one; both socially and economically.
There's a reason why people that get paid by the military to go to college tend to do it: they go to officer training in college, then commission as Lieutenants and graduate in the same week. No more enlisted pay.
With regard to Bayonets, I'm not surprised it's still a fair tactic. Shooting at someone is largely impersonal. Point and click warfare gives you a lot of detachment to play with. Like Gun Nuts often say 'guns don't kill. Bullett do'
But to have someone come at you with a Knife strapped on the end of their Rifle is a different story. You can see them, and they can see you. It is very definitely a conscious act, and they are out to kill you. Perhaps it's just a base instinct to run away from someone with a pointy thing, perhaps it's a very quickly learned response common to humanity, but psychologically it must be devastating.
Particularly in the example above. You have the enemy outnumbered, and out flanker. They are running low on ammo, and then they whip out the Bayonets and come for you. Literally. For you. They have picked a target. And your it. They mean to see you definitely die at their hands. I defy *anyone* not to poop themselves if that happened.
Platuan4th wrote:
My wife just did, as did her entire flight, so don't feed us that BS.
Her entire flight? Was she in the air force? As a pilot? If so she went to the air force academy, which is an entirely different set of affairs that is not representative of college as a whole. Even if she wasn't, the average annual cost of public college floats a little under 13k. So you need to actually reach the average compensation of 50k before you can actually even hope to pay for the average education. You can only actually reach that level through a complicated list of requirement, much of which is dependent upon where the Army decides to place you. Based upon qualification that the Army set. This is the Montgomery GI Bill that I'm talking about, just to be specific.
There are other programs as well. But most of those rely on the enlisted man actually applying for student loans which the army will then pay off, if approved.
Platuan4th wrote:
There's a reason why people that get paid by the military to go to college tend to do it: they go to officer training in college, then commission as Lieutenants and graduate in the same week. No more enlisted pay.
And you're back in the military. If you're not in it for life the armed services are not a particularly effective way of getting ahead.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regard to Bayonets, I'm not surprised it's still a fair tactic. Shooting at someone is largely impersonal. Point and click warfare gives you a lot of detachment to play with. Like Gun Nuts often say 'guns don't kill. Bullett do'
But to have someone come at you with a Knife strapped on the end of their Rifle is a different story. You can see them, and they can see you. It is very definitely a conscious act, and they are out to kill you. Perhaps it's just a base instinct to run away from someone with a pointy thing, perhaps it's a very quickly learned response common to humanity, but psychologically it must be devastating.
Particularly in the example above. You have the enemy outnumbered, and out flanker. They are running low on ammo, and then they whip out the Bayonets and come for you. Literally. For you. They have picked a target. And your it. They mean to see you definitely die at their hands. I defy *anyone* not to poop themselves if that happened.
This is exactly the basis of the pro-bayonet argument.
Griffith's point is that the purpose of infantry is to get the enemy off a position and occupy if for themselves. Killing them is one way of doing that, but an easier way is maybe to scare them away.
Actual hand to hand fighting has been pretty rare since the middle ages.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regard to Bayonets, I'm not surprised it's still a fair tactic. Shooting at someone is largely impersonal. Point and click warfare gives you a lot of detachment to play with. Like Gun Nuts often say 'guns don't kill. Bullett do'
But to have someone come at you with a Knife strapped on the end of their Rifle is a different story. You can see them, and they can see you. It is very definitely a conscious act, and they are out to kill you. Perhaps it's just a base instinct to run away from someone with a pointy thing, perhaps it's a very quickly learned response common to humanity, but psychologically it must be devastating.
Particularly in the example above. You have the enemy outnumbered, and out flanker. They are running low on ammo, and then they whip out the Bayonets and come for you. Literally. For you. They have picked a target. And your it. They mean to see you definitely die at their hands. I defy *anyone* not to poop themselves if that happened.
This makes sense. I've read that in both the civil war and the wars with Napoleon, surgeons treated relatively few bayonet wounds in comparison to other wounds, in particular, artillery. I agree that it was all about the psychological impact. One side would simply lose their determination to stand in the way of the other side's blades and they'd break. Probably the same thing with lancers.
Incidentally, I understand the Union army had a unit of lance during the civil war. I do not know if it was used though. I was told they had aluminum lances, which must have been ruinously expensive at the time. Anyone have a fact check on that one?
I believe it was a Scottish Regiment that first used Bayonets in anger.
As for Cavalry, they were still par for the course in terms of old fashioned charges into the 1st World War. Well, before someone figured out charing Machine Guns and men with Breech Loading Rifles was a bloody stupid idea.
Just something I see in these debates a lot which is sort of a fallacy: This idea that only americans can bear arms is a bit wierd and obviously untrue.
I'm Irish, we've got good gun control, and I own a shotgun, have done since I was 16. I use it for hunting.
My uncles have a couple of shotguns and rifles and my dad has a revolver for some parts of his job, mainly gaurding explosives and the like (he's a policeman).
The difference over here is that you have to go through a bit more screening to get a gun, and penalties for armed crime are fairly steep. That and I think Irish culture is a bit less violent than US culture anyway. Certainly we've a lot less murders per head of population .
I'm not in favour of completely banning guns, but surely stricter controls are fine? I'm talking specifically about decent background checks and severe penalties for unlicenced gun ownership.
Also I realise that these things are a reality in some US states, I'm talking more about the ones with especially lax gun control laws.
It's a hot topic I know, but I've never been able to get a decent answer on the "why not stricter controls" question that didn't hark back to the constitution of the united states. It's a great document, it really is, but it's not a replacement for logic in an argument. I see far too many arguments that boil down to that.
The comments on people from poorer backgrounds are pretty damn ignorant but I'll say no more on that as it's worth a whole thread on it's own that someone will eventually start and we can all have fun on it.
DakkaDakka is one of those places where my veiw is waaaaaaaay left of the centre for the forum, it's kinda fun. Some of the academic boards I debate on, I'm the conservative. I enjoy coming here and seeing the other side, especially as I see all of you posting on nonpolitical stuff too. Helps keep my mind open.
So many opinions. I'm going to try to respond to some of them.
1) Gun Rights. I began to understand gun people after I realized that they take their right to own a gun as seriously as I take the right to free speech, or equal protection, or a religious person takes their right to religion. All of us are willing to say that the right is worth the cost, whether in gun deaths, or in obscenity, or in sectarian differences. Being the bigger man, I've decided that I should support gun owners in making the 2nd amendment more like the first: protected but with certain regulations. Never in this country has banning something that otherwise law abiding people do had good results, and it won't start with guns.
2) I dont' know how the argument of being able to pull oneself up from the bootstraps began, but the debate is frequently non-parallel. Meaning, two sides aren't talking about the same thing. The left wants to talk about how few opporutnies the poor get, while the right wants to point out how many ways they have to escape poverty. That hides the real issue. Yes, it is possible for a person, even in the bleakest ghetto, to escape. He can go to school, avoid drugs and gangs, not get anybody pregnant, stay out of crime, all while risking social alienation. He can go to community college, work part time, and hope to transfer to a state school and get a job to pay off his debt. It's all possible.
What too many people forget is how razor thing the margin of error is. I come from relatively privileged upper middle class background and I had plenty of safety nets that I ended up using. I made connections and had opportunities from an early age that made it easier for me to try and fail. Almost as importantly, I had constant support to stay away from negative actions and go to school. For many of the working class, this isn't always an option. They get one chance, maybe two, and then they're out of money. They simply have a harder time of it.
I respect those that climb out of poverty, and I'm a supporter of sensible welfare reform that rewards indolence. But I also think that there should be third chance and fourth chance programs, not because the state provides those to everybody, but because most people don't need them from the state. Anytime I hear the casual dismissal of the difficulty in escaping poverty I laugh, because it's shockingly hard. I mean, I feel the same way about a lot of well meaning but wasteful programs as well, but there is a middle path that I think can get the money to the people that will use it well. This country has never suffered from investing in human capital.
3) I enjoyed the clip. I found it pretty informative, and while it's clearly a propaganda piece it did a decent job of looking even handed. I would have spent some time exploring the fact that "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" have different meanings and the latter is even more vaguely defined than the first.
would it be constutional for the governemnt to tell us the only legal gun is a muzzeling loading .22 single barrel rifel?? (dont think they make of one those... but just getting point accross)
they are still letting us own a gun... by your deffinition our right has not been infringed upon. after all, we can still own a gun.
No, I said what matters is capability. A muzzle loading .22 wouldn’t have the capability to allow any of the rights in the constitution. It would fall well short of the freedoms allowed by the 2nd amendment. It’d be pretty fun to shoot, though, I wonder if any gunsmith out is made enough to make a muzzle loader in such a tiny calibre.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I believe it was a Scottish Regiment that first used Bayonets in anger.
As for Cavalry, they were still par for the course in terms of old fashioned charges into the 1st World War. Well, before someone figured out charing Machine Guns and men with Breech Loading Rifles was a bloody stupid idea.
There was more extensive use of cavalry on the more mobile Eastern front and in the Mediterranean. Long range mobility had significant advantages when you weren't bogged down in trench warfare. In fact, there were still considerable numbers of horse born troops in the second world war.
Polonius wrote:2) I dont' know how the argument of being able to pull oneself up from the bootstraps began, but the debate is frequently non-parallel. Meaning, two sides aren't talking about the same thing. The left wants to talk about how few opporutnies the poor get, while the right wants to point out how many ways they have to escape poverty. That hides the real issue. Yes, it is possible for a person, even in the bleakest ghetto, to escape. He can go to school, avoid drugs and gangs, not get anybody pregnant, stay out of crime, all while risking social alienation. He can go to community college, work part time, and hope to transfer to a state school and get a job to pay off his debt. It's all possible.
What too many people forget is how razor thing the margin of error is. I come from relatively privileged upper middle class background and I had plenty of safety nets that I ended up using. I made connections and had opportunities from an early age that made it easier for me to try and fail. Almost as importantly, I had constant support to stay away from negative actions and go to school. For many of the working class, this isn't always an option. They get one chance, maybe two, and then they're out of money. They simply have a harder time of it.
I respect those that climb out of poverty, and I'm a supporter of sensible welfare reform that rewards indolence. But I also think that there should be third chance and fourth chance programs, not because the state provides those to everybody, but because most people don't need them from the state. Anytime I hear the casual dismissal of the difficulty in escaping poverty I laugh, because it's shockingly hard. I mean, I feel the same way about a lot of well meaning but wasteful programs as well, but there is a middle path that I think can get the money to the people that will use it well. This country has never suffered from investing in human capital.
Yeah, you pretty much win the thread with that. The point was made really well.
Platuan4th wrote: My wife just did, as did her entire flight, so don't feed us that BS.
Her entire flight? Was she in the air force? As a pilot? If so she went to the air force academy, which is an entirely different set of affairs that is not representative of college as a whole. Even if she wasn't, the average annual cost of public college floats a little under 13k. So you need to actually reach the average compensation of 50k before you can actually even hope to pay for the average education. You can only actually reach that level through a complicated list of requirement, much of which is dependent upon where the Army decides to place you. Based upon qualification that the Army set. This is the Montgomery GI Bill that I'm talking about, just to be specific.
There are other programs as well. But most of those rely on the enlisted man actually applying for student loans which the army will then pay off, if approved.
They're all AFROTC graduates(except for 2 prior Enlisted) in Space and Missiles. Most of them are Engineers(she's Middle Eastern Studies, don't ask, it's a complicated story involving a sexist, racist Colonel). They already got done training the Academy whores(if you know any officers in the AF, you'll get this reference).
Da Boss wrote:Just something I see in these debates a lot which is sort of a fallacy: This idea that only americans can bear arms is a bit wierd and obviously untrue.
I'm Irish, we've got good gun control, and I own a shotgun, have done since I was 16. I use it for hunting.
My uncles have a couple of shotguns and rifles and my dad has a revolver for some parts of his job, mainly gaurding explosives and the like (he's a policeman).
The difference over here is that you have to go through a bit more screening to get a gun, and penalties for armed crime are fairly steep. That and I think Irish culture is a bit less violent than US culture anyway. Certainly we've a lot less murders per head of population .
I'm not in favour of completely banning guns, but surely stricter controls are fine? I'm talking specifically about decent background checks and severe penalties for unlicenced gun ownership.
Also I realise that these things are a reality in some US states, I'm talking more about the ones with especially lax gun control laws.
It's a hot topic I know, but I've never been able to get a decent answer on the "why not stricter controls" question that didn't hark back to the constitution of the united states. It's a great document, it really is, but it's not a replacement for logic in an argument. I see far too many arguments that boil down to that.
The comments on people from poorer backgrounds are pretty damn ignorant but I'll say no more on that as it's worth a whole thread on it's own that someone will eventually start and we can all have fun on it.
DakkaDakka is one of those places where my veiw is waaaaaaaay left of the centre for the forum, it's kinda fun. Some of the academic boards I debate on, I'm the conservative. I enjoy coming here and seeing the other side, especially as I see all of you posting on nonpolitical stuff too. Helps keep my mind open.
Actually, you'll find that some US states have "stricter controls" than many countries. I don't understand the argument because we have the strict controls you mentioned. While there are certainly states with less restrictions and hoops to jump through, I really can't agree than anyone has "lax" laws. All states require immediate background checks before the purchase. While I'm sure there are "gun show loopholes" that exist, the shows Ive been to perform the very same checks in the very same manner. I'm not a gun store owner, so I don't know the exact details, but from my experiences in purchasing the owner ( or salesperson ) makes a call and some state employee on the other end searches some databases.
We can't have stricter penalties for unlicensed possession because for most US states there is no such thing as a gun license. You don't have licenses for rights. I would go out and get one, yes, but that is a legal issue to overcome here.
I imagine we have the same strict penalites for armed crime that you do, or similar ones. Like anything in the US, laws vary a great deal from state to state, but most states have legislation for long, mandatory sentences.
Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?
No, it is illegal for a felon to purchase or possess a firearm in the US. I believe that should change after 10 years of good behavior, to be consistent with voting rights, but I do not believe that is how that works right now.
Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?
-No
-And to the "gunshow loophole" its my understanding that has been closed for some time. I know in Texas it has. You have to have a background check before any purchase. Generally no felony or misdemeanor involving certain types of crimes (or be accused of). Also can't have been adjudicated as being a mental nutjob. Despite that, politicians and lawyers are still allowed to purchase firearms
Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?
-No
-And to the "gunshow loophole" its my understanding that has been closed for some time. I know in Texas it has. You have to have a background check before any purchase. Generally no felony or misdemeanor involving certain types of crimes (or be accused of). Also can't have been adjudicated as being a mental nutjob. Despite that, politicians and lawyers are still allowed to purchase firearms
Yes, add to the felon thing...you can't purchase if you have a misdemeanor record involving domestic violence. I don't know if that is federal or state.
They're also really trying to crack down on straw purchases. There is a advertising and public service type thing called "Don't Lie for the Other Guy". All this is good of course, I just hope the law does not penalize straw purchases that really aren't straw purchases, such as, say, a good collectible firearm purchased as a gift for a recipient who is legally allowed to purchase. Unfortunately, I'm not going to take that risk with the way people jump to conclusions. Just give money.....
Going to have to disagree with the "mental nutjob" thing. I really don't think the mentally ill are more dangerous across the board than anyone else, that needs to be handled on a case by case basis. By a broad enough definition, that would leave about a quarter of the people in the US unable to purchase, including more than a few police officers.
i am 100% behind tougher harder laws when it comes to gun violence. what we have now is a slap on the wrist compared to what it should be.
ok KK... we can own a larger caliber black powder rifel. and mabey, if were good, a 6 shot black powder pistol. that would have the capability to allow the rights in the constutioin.
Grignard: In my post I acknowledged that gun rights in the US varies from state to state, and I was only talking about those that had fairly loose controls.
I'm not entirely sure how you failed to pick up on it.
I'm well aware that the States are not a monolithic block.
Da Boss wrote:Grignard: In my post I acknowledged that gun rights in the US varies from state to state, and I was only talking about those that had fairly loose controls.
I'm not entirely sure how you failed to pick up on it.
I'm well aware that the States are not a monolithic block.
Yes, you explicitly mentioned your understanding of state differences. I'm not sure what you mean by fairly loose controls though. That definition can vary greatly depending on your point of view. In fact, that really is the cause of the argument.
I could answer your questions better if you explained which particular states you find lax. In that way, I could find out if you are mistaken about the laws, or simply disagree with them and think more controls would be helpful. I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean by more controls, because every state in the union has the ones you mentioned.
dogma wrote:
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that, and then tell me about how little pity you have for the disadvantaged. Let us also not forget about how little the military actually pays those who have enlisted, and how difficult it is to transition from the enlisted world to the civilian one; both socially and economically.
Lets see,
Spent 5 years in Active duty Army as a 19Delta Cav Scout. Did 2 tours in Iraq (OIF1&2, OIF 5&6) Got out with 40k in Gi Bill.
Went to Community college for my FF1, Hasmat, Wildland FireFighting, and for fun a Flashover trailor. Going to Another College for Basic EMT then hopefully Advanced Emt.
Guess what? I still have 38k in the bank and once im done with the Emt I will be pulling on around 60k a year as a FireFighter full time (10 days a month working) and part time at the local hospital as a ER Tech.
I went from a breach man on an entry team killing Haji to someone who is commited to saveing lives. Thats about as drastic of a change/transition as one can make and I did it just fine with money to spare.
Yeah military pay sucked. I was a Corporal makeing 23k a year while deployed (less in garrison) but you know what? I was never broke in the Army. The only people who are broke are people who spend more then they make.
As for socially haveing problems... aka PTSD. I personally feel its a joke that alot of National Guardsmen and Females are useing to get a free paycheck for the rest of there lives. Reason why I say this? Ive seen it first hand. I have only seen one guy who I honestly thought he had the PTSD.... and he damn well has a good reason. Had a hand grenade go off next to his brainpan. The only thing that saved him was his CVC helmate which took most the shrapnal, but not all. He had brain damage and had to relearn basic tasks such as walking.To this day he still has a drain tube in his head cause of brain swelling/pressure.
Bottom line, dont talk about things that you dont know from first hand experience.
I personally dont see what the big deal is with firearms. I am an avid gun collector (have over 20k in various firearms) and would love to get my hands on some Class 2 and 3 stuff.
I believe in strong gun control via registration and restrictions. (felons for example)
I feel that Joe Average like myself who has a clean record should be able to walk down and pull a Mp5k off the shelf for less then 20k if he or she chooses too. (hell they were going for 2k prior to the gay gun ban.)
I also feel that if you were every part of any kind of organized crime (active or not) you should not be allowed to own a gun period.
Unfair you may say? Well dont do crime gaks and you will be treatd like a normal human being.
Gangbangers should be shot on sight if you ask me.
Do nothing but pray on innocent people and spray that crap they call art on buildings and underpasses.
Idiots all of you!
Keep the background checks, the paperwork ect ect. Sure its a hassle but its worth it for the gun you want.
If you dont like it then sorry to say but maybe owning a gun isnt for you.
Also FYI Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
Keep the guns away from the idiots and most of the problems will work themselfs out. If you ban guns on a whole all your doing is dis-arming the civilian populace an makeing them prime targets for gangs who will still have guns.
dogma wrote:
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that, and then tell me about how little pity you have for the disadvantaged. Let us also not forget about how little the military actually pays those who have enlisted, and how difficult it is to transition from the enlisted world to the civilian one; both socially and economically.
Lets see,
Spent 5 years in Active duty Army as a 19Delta Cav Scout. Did 2 tours in Iraq (OIF1&2, OIF 5&6) Got out with 40k in Gi Bill.
Went to Community college for my FF1, Hasmat, Wildland FireFighting, and for fun a Flashover trailor. Going to Another College for Basic EMT then hopefully Advanced Emt.
Guess what? I still have 38k in the bank and once im done with the Emt I will be pulling on around 60k a year as a FireFighter full time (10 days a month working) and part time at the local hospital as a ER Tech.
I went from a breach man on an entry team killing Haji to someone who is commited to saveing lives. Thats about as drastic of a change/transition as one can make and I did it just fine with money to spare.
Thank for your service. I hope you achieve what you're trying to do.
@jp400: I agree with you that gun rights should be strongly protected, but you fall into the trap of defending them in such as way as to alienate the moderates and undecideds you need to convince. Preaching to the choir will get them to sing, and in this country there are enough gun owners to vote against bans, but the 2nd amendment can't count on die hard support forever. Far more effort should be expended to convince moderates and even liberal ACLU types like myself that gun rights, like any other right, are a core element of the constitution.
Every defendant has the right to due process, and can be freed if that process is violated, regardless of guilt. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.
People have the right to free expression. Pornography, hate speech, and vehement protest against the government are all speech that many people find offensive. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.
By the same token people have the right to bear arms. Gun violence, accidental deaths, and crime are all problems. Again, that is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.
Liberals need to be reminded that while they can't see the value of gun ownership, many gun owners don't see the value of an absolute freedom of speech or due process. These rights were laid down in the constitution and are cherished by many Americans, and in my opinion that should be what colors the debate.
It bothers me a little when gun control activists color guns in such a negative light, because they sound suspiciously like the anti-free speech people. The most important thing to remember about rights is that they don't protect us from each other: they protect us from the government. Government protects us from each other, but in this country we have always taken a little less protection in exchange for more rights.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm just trying to get a grip on the idea that there are no gun licences.
It seems like there is a negative licence. Everyone can have a gun unless you are on a list that says you can't.
Exactly. This is not just with ownership. This also applies to handgun carry permits. Basically there are three ways of granting handgun carry in the US. There are "shall issue" states and "may issue" ( I'll get to the third type in a second ). A shall issue state, like Tennessee, is exactly what you describe. If you have a clean record and take the class and test, then the state *has* to issue a permit. A may issue state is more like a traditional license, you take the test/class and then someone determines whether or not to issue you a permit; usually it is the county Sheriff that grants permits ( The Sheriff is an elected official, so whether you get that depends a lot on his political leanings). A good example of a may issue state is Hawaii. When I checked about 10 years ago, I found out Hawaii had all of ONE handgun permit in the entire state ( Which belonged to Magnum P.I. of course )
Edit: Oh wait, never got to my third type. Basically the third approach is that the law says that anyone who can legally purchase should be able to carry. This is referred to as "Vermont carry". Alaska just started doing this as well, but will still issue a handgun permit for other states that recognize Alaska permits.
Polonius wrote:@jp400: I agree with you that gun rights should be strongly protected, but you fall into the trap of defending them in such as way as to alienate the moderates and undecideds you need to convince. Preaching to the choir will get them to sing, and in this country there are enough gun owners to vote against bans, but the 2nd amendment can't count on die hard support forever. Far more effort should be expended to convince moderates and even liberal ACLU types like myself that gun rights, like any other right, are a core element of the constitution.
Every defendant has the right to due process, and can be freed if that process is violated, regardless of guilt. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.
People have the right to free expression. Pornography, hate speech, and vehement protest against the government are all speech that many people find offensive. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.
By the same token people have the right to bear arms. Gun violence, accidental deaths, and crime are all problems. Again, that is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.
Liberals need to be reminded that while they can't see the value of gun ownership, many gun owners don't see the value of an absolute freedom of speech or due process. These rights were laid down in the constitution and are cherished by many Americans, and in my opinion that should be what colors the debate.
It bothers me a little when gun control activists color guns in such a negative light, because they sound suspiciously like the anti-free speech people. The most important thing to remember about rights is that they don't protect us from each other: they protect us from the government. Government protects us from each other, but in this country we have always taken a little less protection in exchange for more rights.
Trust me, I'd love to know how to do that Polonius. Unfortunately it is a manner of perception. On one hand, I don't understand how social liberals can want to control a right listed in the constitution ( There are exception groups, like Pink Pistols " Armed gays don't get bashed"). Just the same I can never explain to someone how it looks odd that you want to place limits on speech and expression, yet you want to be able to own any weapon you please. That is fine to feel that way, but I think you have to realize it is somewhat inconsistent.
Unfortunately I think a lot of this results from something I can't stand, which is shoehorning people into groups based on a single belief or political position. For instance, I'm pretty extreme right on firearms. Don't assume anything else, for instance, I'm a moderate pro-choice.
Unfortunately I think a lot of this results from something I can't stand, which is shoehorning people into groups based on a single belief or political position. For instance, I'm pretty extreme right on firearms. Don't assume anything else, for instance, I'm a moderate pro-choice.
Well, it's unfair to group a person, or to shoehorn one person into a mold. Groups do have trends.
I think some old fashioned "there is more that unites us then divides" type speech could help solve some of the problem.
The root problem, alas, has very little to do with speech or guns. It's the dislike of the people. Some of my liberal friends don't find guns to be bad, they just don't like evangelical christians or southerners or rednecks or whatever. like wise some of my conservative friends don't like activists or hippies or weirdos. That's the troubling trend underlying these debates. The movement against guns has, at at least some level, a strong vibe of dislike to stereotypical gun owners. This is due partially to the dislike many stereotypical gun nuts have for stereotypical bleeding heart liberals, but somebody has be the bigger man and simply stop being stupid.
If I could, I would have the ACLU and the NRA announce a strategic partnership to work together and mutually support each other's goals of increased freedoms, in all areas, for all Americans. If more people saw the realtion between free speech and free guns, both sides would respect the other a lot more. Besides, somebody needs to defend our soft liberal lifestyles when the revolution comes....
@ Frazzled: Thank you very much for the kind words.
@ Polonius: Very sorry for the heated wording above. I had just ranted abit and wasnt thinking straight when I wrote the above sentence. While what I said I feel is true, I believe the wording came out wrong and a little too blunt.
I believe that you cant truely have free speech without the Right To Bear Arms. You can look at other countries for prime examples to support this. Whoever has all the guns makes the rules and can force people to live or do whatever they want. A population shouldnt fear its government, its the government that should fear its people.
Now Im not saying everyone needs to be walking around California packing a Rpg, but what I am trying to say is that like it or not, all of our rights are either directly or indirectly tied in with one another.
The argument against Class 3 (aka machine guns) is that its to protect our police and give them an edge in firepower over criminals. This train of thought while noble is flawed to its core. As it stands right now Class 3 is LEGAL to Private Citizens (aka you and me). However it is a real pain the the friggin rear to get. It takes several forms signed by a local official (Sherrif, local Judge ect ect) and a $200 ATF tax stamp paid off all taken care of BEFORE you can even pay for the gun or order it. Also it takes 6 months on average for this process to be approved. Mainly due to the FBI Background check that is required by federal law that must be run on you. On top of this the United States has stopped importation of Automatic Weapons for civilian use since the early 80's. This means that every legal auto weapon in the states that can be owned by Joe Average is at least 20 years old and highly collectable, which translates to very very expensive. For example a Thompson is valued at around 20-30k pending condition/style.
What im trying to get at is that you wont often find these weapons on the wrong side of the law. Most of the weapons used by Gangs and Criminals are either Backyard Specials aka modified semi-autos that have been converted to full auto illegally or are stolen firearms bought on the black markets or smuggled into the country.
This translates into a situation where if you ban a particular type of firearm your only going to hurt the average law abiding citizen, not the criminals who the law is intended for. Like the old saying goes.... "I put a lock on my door to keep the honest man honest."
Many people like myself Enjoy the fine art of shooting. I get a thrill every time I pick up one of my many firearms and go to the range or friends house and go plinking away at various targets. I personally love to shoot the 1000 yrd Challenge... yes that right. Shooting a target at 1000 yards and hitting it. To add even more excitment we add various things to the mix like exploding targets, tracers, flamethrower shotgun rounds ect ect. For some, they will never get the chance to see shooting from this side for many different reasons. It doesnt appeal to them, or they are afraid (I mean this in a nice way I am not mocking, people fear what they dont know! Its human nature.) Or they may live in a overly restrictive state like California where once again the Gangs and criminals have ruined it for the rest of them.
Check this out..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BhP1iPt8o You cant tell me that this doesnt look like fun. Yes these are all Class 3 firearms. That means every weapon there is a Legal Automatic Weapon. Do these people run out and rob banks with them? No. They just want a full auto firearm for this exact purpose... to go out and have fun on a sunny day with friends.
People really need to learn the facts about firearms and the Us. Just because someone owns a gun doesnt mean they are out looking for trouble.
I only wish our current President Elect and everyone else with his mindset could see it from our point of view for once.
jp400 wrote:I believe that you cant truely have free speech without the Right To Bear Arms. You can look at other countries for prime examples to support this. Whoever has all the guns makes the rules and can force people to live or do whatever they want. A population shouldnt fear its government, its the government that should fear its people.
Your position is not supported by history. In Hussein’s Iraq you were free to own all manner of guns, including AK-47s. Yet it was not a free country.
When countries have slipped into tyranny, they have done so in nearly every case with popular support, or at least the popular support of the people who tend to own weapons.
In contrast, almost all democracies in the world have fairly strict gun controls. There is no threat to strip away the civil rights of these people, because they have strong judiciaries and democratically accountable governments. These are the things that really protect you from a slide into tyranny.
Many people like myself Enjoy the fine art of shooting. I get a thrill every time I pick up one of my many firearms and go to the range or friends house and go plinking away at various targets. I personally love to shoot the 1000 yrd Challenge... yes that right. Shooting a target at 1000 yards and hitting it. To add even more excitment we add various things to the mix like exploding targets, tracers, flamethrower shotgun rounds ect ect. For some, they will never get the chance to see shooting from this side for many different reasons. It doesnt appeal to them, or they are afraid (I mean this in a nice way I am not mocking, people fear what they dont know! Its human nature.) Or they may live in a overly restrictive state like California where once again the Gangs and criminals have ruined it for the rest of them.
Yeah, shooting is great fun. I’ve only been about a dozen times, but each time I’ve really enjoyed myself. But guns are not a magic tool to stop oppression.
I only wish our current President Elect and everyone else with his mindset could see it from our point of view for once.
jp400 wrote:I believe that you cant truely have free speech without the Right To Bear Arms. You can look at other countries for prime examples to support this. Whoever has all the guns makes the rules and can force people to live or do whatever they want. A population shouldnt fear its government, its the government that should fear its people.
Your position is not supported by history. In Hussein’s Iraq you were free to own all manner of guns, including AK-47s. Yet it was not a free country.
When countries have slipped into tyranny, they have done so in nearly every case with popular support, or at least the popular support of the people who tend to own weapons.
In contrast, almost all democracies in the world have fairly strict gun controls. There is no threat to strip away the civil rights of these people, because they have strong judiciaries and democratically accountable governments. These are the things that really protect you from a slide into tyranny.
Many people like myself Enjoy the fine art of shooting. I get a thrill every time I pick up one of my many firearms and go to the range or friends house and go plinking away at various targets. I personally love to shoot the 1000 yrd Challenge... yes that right. Shooting a target at 1000 yards and hitting it. To add even more excitment we add various things to the mix like exploding targets, tracers, flamethrower shotgun rounds ect ect. For some, they will never get the chance to see shooting from this side for many different reasons. It doesnt appeal to them, or they are afraid (I mean this in a nice way I am not mocking, people fear what they dont know! Its human nature.) Or they may live in a overly restrictive state like California where once again the Gangs and criminals have ruined it for the rest of them.
Yeah, shooting is great fun. I’ve only been about a dozen times, but each time I’ve really enjoyed myself. But guns are not a magic tool to stop oppression.
I only wish our current President Elect and everyone else with his mindset could see it from our point of view for once.
You don’t understand Obama’s position on guns.
You're cherry picking there sebster. Iraq actually had a fairly westernized state. It was secular, it didn't enforce a state religion, and I understand that there were fewer restrictions on the rights of women than in many states in the area. In fact, that is one reason why supporting Saddam was palatable, it was a sort of counterweight to the theocracy in Iran ( which probably isn't as bad as people think). In fact, my understanding is that you could do pretty much what you could over here.....except criticize his regime, of course. I would bet money he made sure he had more men under arms than the Kurds. I wouldn't imagine he would encourage arms ownership there.
I think we should have let those people deal with their own problems and keep out of it, but that is another story.
The US: Several states don't have extensive controls - Democracy
Mexico: Yep, you can own handguns and long guns here. This is another country where, at one time at least, they had restrictions on "military" calibers. Not to worry though, enter the .45 short and the 9x20mm. These have the same performance as the .45 ACP and the 9x19mm, but they aren't "military", so thats ok now. - Democracy
France: Restricts larger caliber automatics...eh, no worse than several US states with high-cap bans - Democracy
Italy: You can own weapons there. Democracy
Switzerland - democracy...their liberal laws concerning firearms are well known.
All this is anecdotal though, and means nothing. It does lead me to question that "almost all" democracies have strict controls.
Also, i've never understood Obama's position on it either...I gather a middle of the road view, but I really don't know. I've heard all sorts of things, either way, none that I necessarily believed 100%
The point, I'm fairly certain, was that most democracies have weapons control laws that are a good deal more strict than those of totalitarian states. The intent being to question the idea that firearms are somehow capable or protecting a populace from oppression.
Grignard wrote:You're cherry picking there sebster. Iraq actually had a fairly westernized state. It was secular, it didn't enforce a state religion, and I understand that there were fewer restrictions on the rights of women than in many states in the area. In fact, that is one reason why supporting Saddam was palatable, it was a sort of counterweight to the theocracy in Iran ( which probably isn't as bad as people think). In fact, my understanding is that you could do pretty much what you could over here.....except criticize his regime, of course. I would bet money he made sure he had more men under arms than the Kurds. I wouldn't imagine he would encourage arms ownership there.
I think we should have let those people deal with their own problems and keep out of it, but that is another story.
Life in Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad as a lot of media would have people believe, but then life is rarely as bad in a tyranny as the media would have people believe. But that doesn’t mean it was a decent government, and it doesn’t mean it was popular. In fact, it was about as popular as all tyrannies are – popular enough with the right portion of the population.
The US: Several states don't have extensive controls - Democracy
Mexico: Yep, you can own handguns and long guns here. This is another country where, at one time at least, they had restrictions on "military" calibers. Not to worry though, enter the .45 short and the 9x20mm. These have the same performance as the .45 ACP and the 9x19mm, but they aren't "military", so thats ok now. - Democracy
France: Restricts larger caliber automatics...eh, no worse than several US states with high-cap bans - Democracy
Italy: You can own weapons there. Democracy
Switzerland - democracy...their liberal laws concerning firearms are well known.
All this is anecdotal though, and means nothing. It does lead me to question that "almost all" democracies have strict controls.
See, you’ve just cherry picked your own definitions and relied on your own particularly wonky definition of ‘strict control’. Particularly in the case of Mexico, where licenses are only allowed for hunting and personal protection. But even when true, those countries would only matter if I was trying to make a claim that gun restriction somehow led to increased democracy. I’m not, that would be silly. The one trying to make a claim here is jp400, so it is up to him to establish that increased gun control somehow leads to tyranny.
He probably needs to start by reconciling the claim with the UK and Australia.
Also, i've never understood Obama's position on it either...I gather a middle of the road view, but I really don't know. I've heard all sorts of things, either way, none that I necessarily believed 100%
He isn’t a strong 2nd amendment guy, but he isn’t against guns either. I think he considers other issues, health care reform and international relations, a better way to spend his time and political capital.
There was one instance in his time in the Illinois senate where he voted against a piece of legislation that would exempt people from being fined for owning an illegal handgun when that handgun was used in self-defence. He actually agreed with the principle but felt it was up to the individual county to overturn it’s own law – it was a jurisdictional opposition.
If there are new gun controls laws, they’ll likely come from the House of Reps, and it’ll be interesting to see if enough Democrats are interested in putting through. It’ll then be interesting to see if Obama vetoes the thing – his views on the limited role of the presidency indicate he probably won’t be as veto happy as earlier presidents.
Gangbangers should be shot on sight if you ask me.
Do nothing but pray on innocent people and spray that crap they call art on buildings and underpasses.
Idiots all of you!
Shoot on sight, without a trial. or anything. how do you know the difference between hardcore thugs and a bunch of kids. What about skate boarding suburb kids painting thier names on a bridge, do they get hosed down too. A way of getting your point across about guns is not threatning to shoot people on sight.
And us enlisted have a harder time getting through school, with all do respect, sir.
@ Sebster:
Dont really want to argue on Politics too much espically with Obama as the topic (Mainly cause its very touchy, dont want to step on any toes) However here is a very cool read. Please note the links at the end to support every fact here.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate alot of gun stores in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
Seems pretty clear to me. (And thats not based off pics thats based of what Ive personally seen.)
Also please dont try the whole "School is hard in the Military" bull. I made time for mail order classes while overseas. You should look into it sometime. Most well to do colleges will mail you everything you need to any APOAE Address. It all boils down to how badly you want to further your education. The only thing holding you back is you!
jp400 wrote:
Lets see,
Spent 5 years in Active duty Army as a 19Delta Cav Scout. Did 2 tours in Iraq (OIF1&2, OIF 5&6) Got out with 40k in Gi Bill.
Went to Community college for my FF1, Hasmat, Wildland FireFighting, and for fun a Flashover trailor. Going to Another College for Basic EMT then hopefully Advanced Emt.
Guess what? I still have 38k in the bank and once im done with the Emt I will be pulling on around 60k a year as a FireFighter full time (10 days a month working) and part time at the local hospital as a ER Tech.
You were on active duty for 5 years, that's how you picked up so much cash. That's a lot longer than most people are willing to commit to the armed services. You also went to community college, which is smart as the GI bill does not apply to most unaccredited technical schools. Furthermore, you had the ability to serve on active duty for a significant period of time. In peace time the armed services like to rotate deployments in order to minimize the possible expenditure on cashed GI bills by keeping people in the preferential reserve status. You are a statistical anomaly in an even more anomalous period for the modern military.
The main issue with the GI bill is that most people never even claim it. There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts. Not everyone fits into these categories, but many do. The lifers are obviously never going to need the bill, and the burnouts tend to get out before they ever accrue enough money to actually make it useful. Obviously this changes when redeployments become commonplace, but for the most part its 2 years and out for anyone that isn't in it for the haul.
This leaves the people who want to use the Army as a jumping off point for college in kind of a bind. They likely joined the Army because they had no other options, and now that they're out they find they have very few, if any, new ones. They might go to community college, but an Associates is almost completely worthless if you don't plan to make the jump to a Bachelors. They might go into job training, but they probably could have done that before they went into the services anyway, and made more money to boot as the GI bill does not cover most technical training. If they couldn't have done that, then it is unlikely that money was the thing which was preventing them from doing so. Which brings us to the real issue. The people that will be, on average, capable of actually cashing the GI bill (degree students) have better options available to them. And that the people who really could make use of the bill generally cannot apply it to their chosen field.
jp400 wrote:
I went from a breach man on an entry team killing Haji to someone who is commited to saveing lives. Thats about as drastic of a change/transition as one can make and I did it just fine with money to spare.
Yeah military pay sucked. I was a Corporal makeing 23k a year while deployed (less in garrison) but you know what? I was never broke in the Army. The only people who are broke are people who spend more then they make.
You were also a Corporal which put you at a much higher pay grade than most enlisted men. A certain by-product of your time in active service.
jp400 wrote:
Bottom line, dont talk about things that you dont know from first hand experience.
I don't know from first-hand experience, but this is also a large part of my studies pertaining to military policy. So, while I might not know the individual stories of those who have succeeded, I do know that the percentages are against the common use of the GI bill.
How ever scary those guys look. Until they actually commit a crime they are just mid to late 20 year olds doing stupid things with their hands. All I'm saying is due process is there for a reason. Shooting first and asking later is (again, with all due respect).Somthing I hope isn't a prevailing mind set. Again, I'm not for banning guns, in fact I'd be ok with every family man being allowed to carry a hand gun for self defense.
I too, have been to war, I've lost a friend, I've killed 2 men, maybe more (I hope not). I can't look at a sweet 16 anymore. I've gunned a man down, dead, killed him. I'll never have his bloodoff of my hands. Just like some of the places I've grown up, too theold west where there is abondance of guns there is an abundance of death.
I don't wanna sund like I'm bashing you guys, butI's a small jump, (for some) that some wack-o goes nuts and hoses down his class mates with all kinda crazy fire power. I guess to sum it up. because there are cazy people, you have to arm yourself, but also because of crazy people you have to (try) and clamp down on overly deadly weapons.
Oh and on the college note. I finished last year, but I was a 27 year old single male. Trying to juggle a military job, a family and ful time school, it a lot for most people to handle, hence they do 4 years get out and then go do the school bit. But then you have to worry about getting a new job, adjusting to normal life, and school.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
.. and why would this be a bad thing ?
On one hand you moan and bitch about people not knowing what they are doing with guns-- and rightly so-- and then moan about people be required to know about the things ?
Bottom line, dont talk about things that you dont know from first hand experience.
I await with enthusiasm your firsthand gangbanger tales.
That's because that's the one I can't figure out why anyone would have any objections too, especially the original poster given his earlier comments.
Plus this is about the gajallionth time these have been posted, many already disproved ( He didn't vote for a "reckless" bill at all-- that is opinion not a "fact") and I know a fair few people stateside who don't have a problem with some/many of these ideas anyway. Seeing as he espoused nothing of this sort during his election and he has already stated that he has other concerns-- the impending economic collapse of America for example which will leave you unable to afford bullets let alone guns anyway I think may of the fears expressed are groundless.
You can scuttle off back to your troll cave now and return to your paranoia of Obama and Co. coming for your guns.
Copy-and-pasting from a NRA scare sheet doesn't make the assertions true; in fact, it's LESS likely to be accurate. I'd say about 1 in 4 hasn't been thoroughly debunked.
particularly the one about supreme court justices. I'm guessing Obama cares far less about the gun position of the originalist wing of the court than he does for their strict interpretations of other matters of con law.
I mean, would McCain have been better for single issue (gun rights) voters than Obama? I think it's safe to say that yes, he would have been.
To be blunt, in this day and age your 2nd ammendment is something that should belong to history. The original purpose to it no longer exists. However like opening Pandora's box, it's now too late for anything to be done about it. As mentioned tons of times on this board, how do you protect yourselves if the bad guys have guns? Have to say I'd probably fall on ths side of owning a weapon if I was in the same position.
There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts.
Every time I start to think things return to normal you bring forth such diamonds in the rough. Not only have you just insulted millions of veterans including my father, uncle, and pretty much every male ancestor in my family, but you’ve revealed your utter ignorance about the military.
I made a personal point not to mod posts in this area absent the EEOC’s, but this is just atrocious. And you probably won’t even understand why.
Wolfstan wrote:To be blunt, in this day and age your 2nd ammendment is something that should belong to history. The original purpose to it no longer exists.
Course you can say the same about all the Bill of Rights. I'd imagine you'd find a large portion of Congress that would agree.
I am a vet. I served for 6 years with one tour in Iraq. I have since earned a BS. Thank you for telling me that I am a burnout. I wasn't aware until now.
reds8n wrote:That's because that's the one I can't figure out why anyone would have any objections too, especially the original poster given his earlier comments.
Plus this is about the gajallionth time these have been posted, many already disproved ( He didn't vote for a "reckless" bill at all-- that is opinion not a "fact") and I know a fair few people stateside who don't have a problem with some/many of these ideas anyway. Seeing as he espoused nothing of this sort during his election and he has already stated that he has other concerns-- the impending economic collapse of America for example which will leave you unable to afford bullets let alone guns anyway I think may of the fears expressed are groundless.
You can scuttle off back to your troll cave now and return to your paranoia of Obama and Co. coming for your guns.
Why can't you just explain why you disagree with his position? Is it really that difficult? I disagreed with sebster's point, but I thought I tried to explain my point with at least an attempt at respect. Do you understand that this sort of crap is why these threads get locked? Don't you think it possible to disagree with a few aspects of public policy and not have "paranoia of Obama and Co."? Sure, a lot of that list is interpreted in the worst possible light, I absolutely agree with that. You do realize that opinions are not 1 or 10, but can fall along an entire spectrum of possibilities.
Frazzled wrote:
There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts.
Every time I start to think things return to normal you bring forth such diamonds in the rough. Not only have you just insulted millions of veterans including my father, uncle, and pretty much every male ancestor in my family, but you’ve revealed your utter ignorance about the military.
I made a personal point not to mod posts in this area absent the EEOC’s, but this is just atrocious. And you probably won’t even understand why.
This sort of thing appears inevitable around here. The sad part is I don't believe it is simple trolling. Just lock this abortion, its just going to turn in to a series of ad hominem attacks.
There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts.
Every time I start to think things return to normal you bring forth such diamonds in the rough. Not only have you just insulted millions of veterans including my father, uncle, and pretty much every male ancestor in my family, but you’ve revealed your utter ignorance about the military.
I made a personal point not to mod posts in this area absent the EEOC’s, but this is just atrocious. And you probably won’t even understand why.
I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent. If you'll notice the sentence which followed specifically related to those characterizations being incredibly generalized ideas. I understand why if offends you, but it in no way should. Given your age (early 30's?)I expect that all the male ancestors in your family served in a time (pre-Vietnam) when the reality and stigma of the military was far different from what is now. My comments were meant to refer only to the post-Vietnam demographics of the military. And, even if they weren't so focussed commenting on demographics should in no way be taken as a comment on specific people.
I could have, and obviously should have, been more specific about this. Probably this could also have been avoided had I chosen a word with less negative stigma than 'burnout', perhaps downtrodden? Less-well-off? option-less? It is a statistical category which is difficult to account for terminologically as it is incredibly diverse, and based primarily on post-enlistment numbers.
I do not understand, however, why you feel that a comment on the trends of military enrollment must be offensive to your ancestors. Why are you so sensitive to the examination of servicemen? I only ask because I recall similar reactions from you when McCain had his record questioned.
Edit: As a small snapshot of the statistics which I look at when making these conclusions.
Here is a chart which comments on various statistical relationship in military recruitment. Note the upper left box. Their written conclusion is inaccurate as they compare the mean income of enlisted members of the armed services to the median income in the United State whiles assuming that such a statistic represents the middle class. Indeed, the actual median household income for enlisted men is like a good deal lower than the mean which is supplied. Also, note the method utilized to determine mean enlisted income is highly flawed.:
Much of the analysis in this paper (including this section) uses five-digit Census ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) as the unit of analysis. The Census Bureau uses ZCTAs to approximate U.S. Postal Service ZIP codes. In most cases, ZCTAs correspond to postal ZIP codes. For example, Representative Rangel resides in the postal ZIP code 10037. The corresponding five-digit ZCTA 10037, shown in Figure 1, has a median household income of $26,561. In 1999, four recruits originated from the area, in 2003, the total was six recruits.
According to the 2000 Census, the national median income per household in 1999 was $41,994 in 1999 dollars. By assigning each recruit the median 1999 household income for his hometown ZIP code, we calculated that the mean 1999 income for 1999 recruits before entering the military was $41,141 (in 1999 dollars). The mean 1999 income for 2003 recruits was $42,822 (in 1999 dollars). In other words, on average, recruits in 2003 were from wealthier neighborhoods than were recruits in 1999.
Also note this article from national priorities dealing with a lack of 'high quality recruits'.
Burnouts is incredibly offensive and is not synonimous with The term burnouts is incredibly offensive and is not synonymous with downtrodden, less well of, or option less. Further it ignores a plethora of reasons why people would join the military, and not be “lifers.” Your bifurcation to post Vietnam is erroneous.
Had you said something to the effect of “those with limited economic opportunities” I would agree to a great extent in that many join the military for that reason-it’s a way to obtain new avenues and improve themselves. But that’s not the only reason.
Frazzled wrote:The term burnouts is incredibly offensive and is not synonymous with downtrodden, less well of, or option less. Further it ignores a plethora of reasons why people would join the military, and not be “lifers.” Your bifurcation to post Vietnam is erroneous.
It was a deliberate abstraction based on the two, far and away, largest categories of post-Vietnam military recruits: career guys, and 1-tour guys (which, in hindsight, is superior parlance). And there was a pronounced shift in military recruitment during the post-Vietnam era when a great many drafted soldiers came back as anti-war activists. It is impossible to maintain a net positive public perception of the military when you both enact a draft, and 'lose' the war you drafted men to fight.
Frazzled wrote:
Had you said something to the effect of “those with limited economic opportunities” I would agree to a great extent in that many join the military for that reason-it’s a way to obtain new avenues and improve themselves. But that’s not the only reason.
Obviously not. Which was the reason for the application of a disclaimer immediately after the sentence you took offense to. The entire thrust of the post was that the vast majority of post Vietnam recruits join the services in order to derive the benefits of service. Only to find that those benefits, in peace time, are not what they were advertised to be. Yeah, there is the issue of military tradition, but that is a much smaller factor than you might believe. I think you'd also be surprised by the number of relatively wealthy, but less academically talented, kids who enlist. They certainly have other economic opportunities, but tend to join up as doing so generally has a lower stigma than enrolling in technical school. Though the post-Iraq military, with its VA shenanigans, is unlikely to be held in similar regard.
You may have thought thats what you stated but the post was pretty clear, lifers or burnouts. You know who burnouts are. I know who burnouts are. Now you're trying to backtrack by inserting new segments when the original segment segment was pretty clear.
Further your notes about post Vietnam views of the military betrays a certain “world view” that jives with the above. Where I come from the military is not looked down upon. We shake their hands and thank them for service.
Frazzled wrote:You may have thought thats what you stated but the post was pretty clear, lifers or burnouts. You know who burnouts are. I know who burnouts are. Now you're trying to backtrack by inserting new segments when the original segment segment was pretty clear.
No, I'm trying to apologize for offending you while keeping discussion open. I'm pretty sure you stopped reading my original post at 'burnout' without actually taking the time to contextualize it within the larger framework of what I wrote. I was at fault to use such obtuse terminology, but that does not mean that I meant it in the context which you assume I did. Everything I have written here has been a matter of clarification, not back-peddling
Frazzled wrote:
Further your notes about post Vietnam views of the military betrays a certain “world view” that jives with the above. Where I come from the military is not looked down upon. We shake their hands and thank them for service.
I suggest you quit while you’re behind on this.
Sure, where you come from that may be true, but where you come from is only where you come from. I base my conclusions on statistical analysis and internal commentary on military recruitment, not something as simple are how I feel about them. Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better. I respect people who serve but no amount of respect should elevate a person or institution above examination. Frankly, I find this kind of 'with us, or against us' mentality pretty offensive.
Typeline wrote:People think guns are bad because they are used to kill people, get over it.
I'll probably never own more than a handgun.
I'd totally shoot anyone that broke into my house or attacked me/my family/friends (In some cases). ... I'd be aiming for chest/head shots.
People are afraid of guns because they've never handled on in Real Life. It is irrational mass phobia that we're talking about. I always like to compare with a 10" chef's knife. You handle that every day in the kitchen, but if that thing ever goes up under your ribs, you're dead.
If things start getting stupid, I'll be getting 2 autoguns (one for me, one for the wife) and an assault shotgun (for the house).
In my house? Triple-tap (center of mass, center of mass, headshot) to put them down fast. If it's a home invasion and my family is on the line, I have no qualms about killing every single one of them if I have to.
sexiest_hero wrote:How about a limit on guns, like a hand gun for defense and a rifle for hunting, I'm not anti gun i'm anti assault weapon.
There is no need for these limits. And an assault weapon is just a rifle. I see no need to make any distinction or have any restriction. It's not the gun, it's the user.
legoburner wrote:It is going to be an interesting and disturbing day 10-15 years into the future when home 3D printing comes of age and people can print out any weapon they can conceive, including moving parts. Ammo might be a bit of a challenge but there will certainly be a surge in crazy bladed weapons and spring loaded, short ranged weapons. Still, at least we'll all be safe at home printing off wargaming models!
I am not afraid of plastic waepons. A gun with a polystyrene barrel? You might break the skin at close range, assuming that your plastic hammer and plastic spring can snap hard enough to fire the bullet, the firing chamber doesn't explode, the barrel doesn't instantly burst, and the bullet goes where you're pointing.
As for knives, I can already get several high-quality resin knives from Cold Steel that are far less expensive, far stronger, and far sharper than what that 3-D printer would cost. If we're talking swords, you go ahead with your bad self and make that polystyrene sword. If I'm armed with a taped wooden baseball bat one (illegal, BTW; get the shatterproof resin one from Cold Steel), I could beat your ass 8 ways to Sunday against any 3-d printed plastic weapon you can imagine.
Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better.
Really, just stop at this point.
What, you don't believe me? That's fine, I don't particularly care because at this point you're looking for reasons to get offended. I indirectly questioned your beliefs using admittedly obtuse terminology, and your response is now to try and shout me down. That says something about you I'm sure.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
People are afraid of guns because they've never handled on in Real Life. It is irrational mass phobia that we're talking about. I always like to compare with a 10" chef's knife. You handle that every day in the kitchen, but if that thing ever goes up under your ribs, you're dead.
If things start getting stupid, I'll be getting 2 autoguns (one for me, one for the wife) and an assault shotgun (for the house).
In my house? Triple-tap (center of mass, center of mass, headshot) to put them down fast. If it's a home invasion and my family is on the line, I have no qualms about killing every single one of them if I have to.
It isn't so much a fear of the weapons as it is a fear of the weapons getting into the hands of the wrong people (criminals, mentally unstable, postmen). Certainly some people may fear guns, but there is also a strong rational component to at least heavily restricting their sale. Unless you really want incidents involving the exchange of gun-fire to become statistically common events in major cities. You know, because that won't cause any collateral damage at all. :S
Also, if things get bad enough that you really need to use assault weaponry to ensure your security don't expect to last very long. Mobs have a tendency to turn on those who are either more powerful, or better off. There's also that trifling little matter of ammunition.
Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better.
Really, just stop at this point.
What, you don't believe me? That's fine, I don't particularly care because at this point you're looking for reasons to get offended. I indirectly questioned your beliefs using admittedly obtuse terminology, and your response is now to try and shout me down. That says something about you I'm sure.
Oh I believe everything your saying. But you're missing the forest for the trees.
Lets restate and paraphrase:
'lifer or burnout'
'number of relatively wealthy, but less academically talented, kids who enlist'
'when the reality and stigma of the military was far different from what is now. '
'would have joined had my alternatives not been so much better'
You're not seeing how this would torque off an exceedingly large portion of the US population?
dogma wrote:Certainly some people may fear guns, but there is also a strong rational component to at least heavily restricting their sale.
Unless you really want incidents involving the exchange of gun-fire to become statistically common events in major cities. You know, because that won't cause any collateral damage at all. :S
Also, if things get bad enough that you really need to use assault weaponry to ensure your security don't expect to last very long. Mobs have a tendency to turn on those who are either more powerful, or better off. There's also that trifling little matter of ammunition.
Well, I've actually spoken with some of these anti-gun people. And I've found that the best question to start the discussion is simply: "Have you fired a gun?"
Because, mostly, they think that guns are like TV & movies, and we all know how realistic *that* is... :S :S :S
You're aware that most of Texas is a "shall issue" state, and that guns are very common there? Same with the midwest (hunting)? In hunting season, you will see firearms everywhere. But shootouts aren't very common at all. It's not like TV.
@Fraz, how many gun battles have you had in your city lately?
As for the collapse situation, I'd rather try to defend my family and run out of ammunition, than bend over the table and take whatever they decide to dish out. At least I would have tried...
I've found in every instance, if you can get woman to shoot a handgun once, they love it. Nothing is more interesting than seeing a grandmother shoot a 1911 hogleg...
Frazzled wrote:I've found in every instance, if you can get woman to shoot a handgun once, they love it. Nothing is more interesting than seeing a grandmother shoot a 1911 hogleg...
Amen to that. ____
BTW, have you seen the firearms bloopers on youtube?
I keep thinking "hmm... maybe a bit less gun next time?"
Oh I believe everything your saying. But you're missing the forest for the trees.
What? You're offended because I have a critical opinion of the military? Come on man.
Frazzled wrote:
Lets restate and paraphrase:
'lifer or burnout'
Admittedly a poor choice of words that I have, for like the 4th time now, apologized for and contextualized.
Frazzled wrote:
'number of relatively wealthy, but less academically talented, kids who enlist'
Academically talented kids who want to join the services go to Annapolis, West Point, or the Air Force Academy. They do not enlist, at least not in appreciable numbers. Enlist is a very specific bit of terminology.
Frazzled wrote:
'when the reality and stigma of the military was far different from what is now. '
You really think that the majority of the US views the military in the same way as they did before Vietnam? There are disproportionate recruitment draws from the states in the South, and West of America. Pretty much from Arkansas to Nevada, stopping at roughly the Mason-Dixon. A region which also happens to be, with the exception of Texas, the most sparsely populated part of the nation. Prior to Vietnam these discrepancies did not exist. Tell me that isn't a change of heart.
Frazzled wrote:
'would have joined had my alternatives not been so much better'
They were much better. If I had enlisted I could have expected to see maybe 15k (knee injuries prevent me from serving in active deployment) in funds for college after getting out. The school I went to cost me roughly 40k a year in tuition. That isn't even a drop in the bucket so why would I bother? You might not like it that huge chunks of the nation think about their bottom line before their 'duty' but that's the way it is. Just look how opposed to new taxes the electorate is and you'll get another feel for this reality.
Frazzled wrote:
You're not seeing how this would torque off an exceedingly large portion of the US population?
Not really. I see one offensive comment which I apologized for and contextualized. Followed by three comments which are driven by a statistically minded perception of armed services recruitment. And a final statement about my personal economic reality.
Frazzled wrote:I've found in every instance, if you can get woman to shoot a handgun once, they love it. Nothing is more interesting than seeing a grandmother shoot a 1911 hogleg...
Amen to that. ____
BTW, have you seen the firearms bloopers on youtube?
I keep thinking "hmm... maybe a bit less gun next time?"
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well, I've actually spoken with some of these anti-gun people. And I've found that the best question to start the discussion is simply: "Have you fired a gun?"
By your definition I probably am an anti-gun person, but I'm not afraid of guns. I've gone shooting several times. Its fun, but it has nothing to do with gun regulation.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Because, mostly, they think that guns are like TV & movies, and we all know how realistic *that* is... :S :S :S
True enough. Though most gun advocates have a similar perception of their own abilities to use a firearm in a threatening situation. Shooting with your adrenaline pumping is not conducive to accuracy, especially when you are being threatened.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
You're aware that most of Texas is a "shall issue" state, and that guns are very common there? Same with the midwest (hunting)? In hunting season, you will see firearms everywhere. But shootouts aren't very common at all. It's not like TV.
Most states are 'shall issue' and almost all 'shall issue' states have pretty stringent regulations on who they 'shall issue' to. I don't particularly care that people have the ability to purchase weapons. I care about whether or not those weapons are funneled to people responsible enough to be trusted with them. Most gun laws are pretty well designed, but I take issue with organizations like the NRA that constantly fight to have them made less stringent.
Personally I would like to see a large excise tax on all non-hunting firearms (hunting weapons being long shotguns and low capacity semi-automatic/bolt-action rifles) as they are strictly luxury items with no purpose beyond amusement or killing.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
As for the collapse situation, I'd rather try to defend my family and run out of ammunition, than bend over the table and take whatever they decide to dish out. At least I would have tried...
Meh, that's your choice. It isn't a likely (even remotely) event anyway, so it doesn't matter.
dogma wrote:By your definition I probably am an anti-gun person, but I'm not afraid of guns. I've gone shooting several times. Its fun, but it has nothing to do with gun regulation.
OK, just checking. FWI, you're an outlier.
dogma wrote:Though most gun advocates have a similar perception of their own abilities to use a firearm in a threatening situation. Shooting with your adrenaline pumping is not conducive to accuracy, especially when you are being threatened.
True, and I hope never to be in a situation where it becomes necessary. But I'm very familiar with weapons, and a decent shot, so if push comes to shove, I'd hope I come out on top.
dogma wrote:Most states are 'shall issue' and almost all 'shall issue' states have pretty stringent regulations on who they 'shall issue' to. I don't particularly care that people have the ability to purchase weapons. I care about whether or not those weapons are funneled to people responsible enough to be trusted with them. Most gun laws are pretty well designed, but I take issue with organizations like the NRA that constantly fight to have them made less stringent.
Personally I would like to see a large excise tax on all non-hunting firearms (hunting weapons being long shotguns and low capacity semi-automatic/bolt-action rifles) as they are strictly luxury items with no purpose beyond amusement or killing.
I'm not sure you understand what "shall issue" means from a rights standpoint. It means that the burden is on the state to prove that somebody shouldn't be allowed to carry. As a result, concealed carry is strongly legal, such that, anybody, anywhere could be carrying.
As for people and usage, the big question is really whether the government bothers to fully and strongly enforce the laws already on the books. Such as possession and/or usage of firearms in the commission of a crime. When the government actually cares and acts to penalize criminals for being illegally armed, then firearms-related crime become much less of an issue.
At some point, that "tax" you want becomes unconstitutional restraint on our 2nd Amendment right.
dogma wrote:Meh, that's your choice. It isn't a likely (even remotely) event anyway, so it doesn't matter.
You never know. Later tonight, I'll post a link to someone's perspective in a post-collapse economy. They're pretty strongly pro-gun post-collapse. And they were sitting pretty right before the collapse.
Dogma has dug himself quite a hole here, but I think I get what he's trying to say. Allow me to interpret:
The modern military (post-vietnam) is an all-volunteer force. Not volunteer as in unpaid, but volunteer as in only those people that want to serve are involved. Patriotism, or a desire to serve, or a feeling of duty are always among the reasons that people join the military (as oppposed to working their way up a fast food franchise or going to the mill or similar options) are those that seek to use it for a career or those for whom joining the military is the best option for the skills, training and compensation they are looking to get.
His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.
I think its possible that Dogma still carries the idea that those in the military are there out of economic necessity, which many servicemen and veterans find insulting, when in actuality military service is one of the hardest ways to earn a living wage for privates, and I think he forgets that the military isn't dead end. It's very harsh in only promoting those with the skills and talent to move up, but hard working and talented people become senior NCOs and enjoy top market benefits and a healthy salary.
As for Frazzled: i think it's time to stop pretending that every person in the service is doing it out of a deep patriotice duty and nothing more. Yes, those that serve are putting their life on the line for the country and deserve the benefits they recieve, but it's not insulting to assume that the economic benefits are a factor in why people enlist. And yes, some do come from backgrounds where they have very few options. Others would rather take time off and do something productive before going back to school, and earn some money on the side. Others seek skills and training, or the GI bill to elminate or reduce college loan debt.
Dogma may have insulted you, but he didn't mean to, apologized, and tried to explain his position. Yes, his perceptions are wrong here, but you could have corrected them rather than yelling at him. As a poster here, much less as a mod, you could work harder to diffuse a situation rather than escalate it.
Polonius wrote:His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.
That is necessarily true as a strict consequence of AVF, by definition.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
The numbers show that, overall, the military is fairly reflective of the US as a whole, rather than having a heavy skew downward. In the AVF, many uneducated / undereducated / lower class simply won't qualify to meet standards.
Polonius wrote:His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.
That is necessarily true as a strict consequence of AVF, by definition.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
The numbers show that, overall, the military is fairly reflective of the US as a whole, rather than having a heavy skew downward. In the AVF, many uneducated / undereducated / lower class simply won't qualify to meet standards.
It's actually far easier to get into college than into the military. The number of people they turn away every year is staggering.
Polonius wrote:
His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.
It is, but the middle class is largely shrinking in terms of purchasing power. As is attested by the near $17,210, and growing, gap between mean and median household incomes. Which is a big problem for people who join up expecting to get money for college when they get out, only to find that the school they expected to pay for is still well out of their reach. For many recruits the options boil down to community college, technical school, and the military. They join the military because (aside from patriotism) they believe it will help them go to a 4 year institution, but when they end their tour they realize that joining the services has simply left them right back where they started.
Polonius wrote:
I think its possible that Dogma still carries the idea that those in the military are there out of economic necessity, which many servicemen and veterans find insulting, when in actuality military service is one of the hardest ways to earn a living wage for privates, and I think he forgets that the military isn't dead end. It's very harsh in only promoting those with the skills and talent to move up, but hard working and talented people become senior NCOs and enjoy top market benefits and a healthy salary.
I certainly do not think that all of the people in the military are there out of economic necessity. Nor do I believe that it is a dead end. My point was that, in peace time, there is little economic incentive to enlist for the very fact that climbing through the ranks is so difficult. In that sense it is a severe misnomer to consider the armed services as a magical gateway to success as most people will not serve more than 1 tour of duty. Largely because they don't want to stay on any longer, but also because the services don't want them to. That is the great myth of the GI bill. It is not money which they will give to just anyone. It is entirely dependent upon the willingness of the service to accept any given recruit as a multiple deployment soldier. In many ways it is just another type of merit scholarship which is much more difficult to earn.
That's one of the issues with recruitment. The benefits are simply not competitive with similar options available to those people they are attempting to attract (4 year degree students). One way to fix this would be to allow the dispensation of the GI bill to technical schools, or other such institutions. Sure, there is the military tradition to account for, but that isn't really something that can be directly affected by policy choices. People will see the military however they choose, and react accordingly. What the services can do is increase the number of higher pay-grade personnel (Rummy wanted to do this before he got forced out) in order to encourage longer enlistment. This has the dual affect of increasing the readiness of our forces, and generally improving the perception of the services as a whole. The military will be a lot more attractive when the percentage of leaving soldiers going to school is significantly higher.
Edit: Thanks for being the voice of clarity, Polonius.
Hey in the military you should be used to people protesting against you, just look at such yearly protests at the school of americas on Ft. Benning in GA. In fact we fight to protect the rights of people to say things we don't agree with. I've been called worse thengs than a burn-out by people I agree with, so that's that.
I do belive that the government should pump more money into Recruitment training, and most importantly FAMILY AFFAIRS, the divorce rates suicide rates Post tramatic stress rates, and worst of all domestic violance rates are way too high.
I wish Rommy had won the primaries, I liked his Military stance as well.
Grignard: Essentially what I consider loose is someone being allowed to have a gun for no particular reason.
I have my gun for hunting, so I have to able to prove that I have somewhere to hunt, join a game preservation club to make sure I hunt responsibly, and get a cert from local Gardaí attesting to my good character.
Another thing I think is pretty loose is allowing automatic weapons to be sold. I think they should be sold, but only under the absolute strictest conditions, and you shouldn't be allowed keep them in your house.
My brother is a british military trained sniper, he likes to use a sniper rifle every now and then to keep his skills sharp. If he wants to do that (which I think is pretty reasonable, and probably fun) he can head to a specific place and rent one for a few hours for some practice. He doesn't need to own one to do what he needs, so he's not allowed.
On the other hand, some people would be allowed to own high powered rifles, for deer hunting and the like (which is mostly a public service over here because the natural predators or deer were hunted to death by the nobility around 1790, so they tend to get a bit out of control) but the vetting process is a lot more complex than it would be for my double barrelled shotgun for example.
While this is my opinion I still realise that the US is a very different place, my main point was that you guys and the swiss are not the only ones with guns
Da Boss wrote:Grignard: Essentially what I consider loose is someone being allowed to have a gun for no particular reason.
I have my gun for hunting, so I have to able to prove that I have somewhere to hunt, join a game preservation club to make sure I hunt responsibly, and get a cert from local Gardaí attesting to my good character.
Another thing I think is pretty loose is allowing automatic weapons to be sold. I think they should be sold, but only under the absolute strictest conditions, and you shouldn't be allowed keep them in your house.
My brother is a british military trained sniper, he likes to use a sniper rifle every now and then to keep his skills sharp. If he wants to do that (which I think is pretty reasonable, and probably fun) he can head to a specific place and rent one for a few hours for some practice. He doesn't need to own one to do what he needs, so he's not allowed.
On the other hand, some people would be allowed to own high powered rifles, for deer hunting and the like (which is mostly a public service over here because the natural predators or deer were hunted to death by the nobility around 1790, so they tend to get a bit out of control) but the vetting process is a lot more complex than it would be for my double barrelled shotgun for example.
While this is my opinion I still realise that the US is a very different place, my main point was that you guys and the swiss are not the only ones with guns
Yah, that is the core difference right there. I would hate the idea of having to justify to someone else why I wanted to do something, especially the police. I feel that it really isn't anyone's business because I've never been on the wrong side of the law. If I had a history of bad behavior, so to speak, that would be entirely different.
When you say automatic weapons, do you mean fully automatic or auto-loading. Being able to buy the first category I feel is loose ( Though I'm not necessarily against it), though I really don't see the sale of auto-loading pistols or rifles being terribly loose. I'm not particularly good with rifles, but I can pop rounds into a bolt action rifle pretty damn fast and still fire accurately, and pistols with a revolver mechanism are really not that much different than autoloaders as far as effective rate of fire. In fact, if I'm introducing someone to pistol shooting, I always give them my .38, because the point and click nature of the revolver is much less intimidating than the seemingly complex automatic.
Is Irish law about that very similar to the UK? I'm not really here to criticize other nation's laws, but I never could understand that you can purchase a shotgun without too much trouble, but pistols are a real no-no. It doesn't take a genius to attack that barrel with a saw, and they're definitely lethal weapons close up.
Again, I don't have any desire to take my guns to your nation, and I can respect your nation's views on that, I just don't particularly want them here . I think it is great that you can still go shoot though.
Well, autoloading shotguns for example have clip limitations.
I think shotguns, even with sawn off barrels, are harder to hide than pistols. And when you renew your licence they have a look at your gun as far as I'm aware. But all of that said, the sawn off shotgun is the most popular weapon with impromtu armed robbers over here. The gangs seem to like automatic weapons moreso.
By automatic I meant fully automatic though on the whole.
Irish law is a little bit less stringent than UK law but on the whole it's pretty similar. (As with most things)
The police thing I can understand but over here the Gardaí are seen in a more positive light, not as police in the way other countries might. This is changing as irish socierty changes though, certainly in inner city areas distrust of the Gardaí can be high. They aren't armed normally though, which means they rely a lot on diplomacy and knowing people personally more than force. I'd never be worried or annoyed to have to speak to the Gardaí.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?
Surely an semi is all you'd need, as it allows for a decent enough rate of fire should things go really pear shaped?
Not sure what pear shaped means...I've only heard that term used to refer to a woman.
I don't really need any firearm, except my rifle which I use for hunting. I wouldn't own a fully automatic weapon because A. I can't afford it B. I can't afford the ammunition C. It isn't really the type of shooting I want to do regularly. None of this is a matter of need, but rather just something you want to do. Its a hobby for me. I would really like to fire something automatic, just to see what that is like, though. My preferred type of target shooting is using handguns, which often the "need" concept is brought up in relation to that.
Honestly, one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had while shooting was a few years ago when someone brought a flintlock to the range, and let me have a go at it. It is very interesting to shoot, nothing at all like a modern rifle or even a modern muzzleloader.
Incidentally I didn't know you could get an autoloading shotgun at all in the UK or Ireland.
jp400 wrote:@ Sebster:
Dont really want to argue on Politics too much espically with Obama as the topic (Mainly cause its very touchy, dont want to step on any toes) However here is a very cool read. Please note the links at the end to support every fact here.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17
(snip the rest)
So you're just quoting straight off an NRA website, without checking a single point? Your list has been entirely discredited; http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html. You really should write to the NRA and ask them to stop, because it's bad for the cause and for political debate when a group is happy for its own lobbyists to lie to them like that.
Also, I've noticed you didn't try defending your claim that guns are needed for home defence. Conceding that point?
Grignard wrote:Why can't you just explain why you disagree with his position? Is it really that difficult? I disagreed with sebster's point, but I thought I tried to explain my point with at least an attempt at respect. Do you understand that this sort of crap is why these threads get locked? Don't you think it possible to disagree with a few aspects of public policy and not have "paranoia of Obama and Co."? Sure, a lot of that list is interpreted in the worst possible light, I absolutely agree with that. You do realize that opinions are not 1 or 10, but can fall along an entire spectrum of possibilities.
Yeah, I think people should be expected to substantiate their points, and be willing to clarify with additional post if they want to be taken seriously... but I'm not sure that much substance is really needed when the other guy is just cutting and pasting old, discredited chain emails.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?
For maintaing suppressive fire while the artillery is brought on target, obviously.
Grignard wrote:Not sure what pear shaped means...I've only heard that term used to refer to a woman.
Classic British comedy, The Thin Blue Line, had a character called Inspector Fowler, who referred to things as going 'pear shaped' when things went wrong. I tried to find a youtube clip of him saying it but no luck... just type 'The Thin Blue Line' into youtube to see some of the show if you're interested.
I don't really need any firearm, except my rifle which I use for hunting. I wouldn't own a fully automatic weapon because A. I can't afford it B. I can't afford the ammunition C. It isn't really the type of shooting I want to do regularly. None of this is a matter of need, but rather just something you want to do. Its a hobby for me. I would really like to fire something automatic, just to see what that is like, though. My preferred type of target shooting is using handguns, which often the "need" concept is brought up in relation to that.
Honestly, one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had while shooting was a few years ago when someone brought a flintlock to the range, and let me have a go at it. It is very interesting to shoot, nothing at all like a modern rifle or even a modern muzzleloader.
Yeah, my favourite to shoot was a muzzle loaded Enfield. Felt just like Sharpe, I did
First off...
Next time try multiquote bud, its on the forum for a reason.
Second, I love how you seem So full of hate in your posts. Can it be that you cant respond with a reasonable answer backed up by anything other then snide comments and failed attempts at flamebaiting? Really Ol' Boy, it wll help people take you seriously around these parts.
Up next, I posted the links and let people read them and gather there own conclusions. All I said was that it was an interesting read. Also for research dont you think I clicked the posted links at the bottom? Dont you think its hard to argue with black and white from the AP? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Really.
As for guns for Home/self defence. I felt that it was already worded well by others on this topic. So I didnt feel the need to comment. However since you asked I feel that it really boils down to a personal preference. I feel that I do need a gun for self defence, and that feeling is felt by most of America and most likely the world. If someone comes into my house and is a threat to me or my faimily you better believe im going to shoot the SOB first and ask questions later.
I feel that its Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
@Mad Doc: Actually, full auto is horrible for room clearing. At most you would use a three round burst, but at close range you cant really afford to spray due to the fact that FF accidents are common at that range.
Most Entry Teams are trained to fire in whats called controled pairs. The weapon is on Semi and you fire two well aimed shots in quick succession at your target. This is NOT a double tap.
I will post more later when I have time, but work is calling my name ATM.
jp400 wrote:First off...
Next time try multiquote bud, its on the forum for a reason.
Second, I love how you seem So full of hate in your posts. Can it be that you cant respond with a reasonable answer backed up by anything other then snide comments and failed attempts at flamebaiting? Really Ol' Boy, it wll help people take you seriously around these parts.
Sebster? Hostility? Not really. Your reading hostility into his posts because he isn't bowing to your arguments, but there isn't any malice there I assure you. Snide comments sure, but your argument isn't internally consistent, so that's to be expected.
jp400 wrote:
Up next, I posted the links and let people read them and gather there own conclusions. All I said was that it was an interesting read. Also for research dont you think I clicked the posted links at the bottom? Dont you think its hard to argue with black and white from the AP? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Really.
Actually the AP is pretty easy to argue with, as all they do is write the immediate fact with minimal contextualization.
jp400 wrote:
As for guns for Home/self defence. I felt that it was already worded well by others on this topic. So I didnt feel the need to comment. However since you asked I feel that it really boils down to a personal preference. I feel that I do need a gun for self defence, and that feeling is felt by most of America and most likely the world. If someone comes into my house and is a threat to me or my faimily you better believe im going to shoot the SOB first and ask questions later.
I feel that its Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
You may feel that way, but don't claim that most of America agrees. And, even if that were true, I would still deny most Americans the right to own weapons as most Americans are not to trusted in their use. Least of all in any type of hostile situation.
jp400 wrote:
@Mad Doc: Actually, full auto is horrible for room clearing. At most you would use a three round burst, but at close range you cant really afford to spray due to the fact that FF accidents are common at that range.
That depends on what you mean by room clearing. In a breach full-auto is virtually worthless, but I think Grotsnik was referring to the suppressing process which takes place immediately prior to a breach.
jp400 wrote:
Most Entry Teams are trained to fire in whats called controled pairs. The weapon is on Semi and you fire two well aimed shots in quick succession at your target. This is NOT a double tap.
I will post more later when I have time, but work is calling my name ATM.
Ah, yeah, looks like it was just a mistake of terminology on MDG's part.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?
Surely an semi is all you'd need, as it allows for a decent enough rate of fire should things go really pear shaped?
Realistically, in terms of home defense, all you really need is a gun. It doesn't matter too terribly what kind of gun, so long as it is a gun. Deterrence is king, and any firearm will accomplish it. Unless you're actually expecting some form of gun battle, in which case you'd want something appropriate. Though if you are expecting a gun battle I would argue that you do not deserve to own a firearm.
You may feel that way, but don't claim that most of America agrees. And, even if that were true, I would still deny most Americans the right to own weapons as most Americans are not to trusted in their use. Least of all in any type of hostile situation.
I'm glad to know that by your assessment most Americans "are not to be trusted" with firearms. We should allow you to make all of our decisions for us. Apparently we're all culturally ignorant morons, or at least you've tried to make that clear in some of your recent posts . I mean, that is the conclusion I came to from your repeated snide and pedantic remarks and your decision to label a large group of Americans as "burnouts".
dogma wrote:in peace time, there is little economic incentive to enlist for the very fact that climbing through the ranks is so difficult.
Given that America rarely goes more than a decade without protracted miltary action of some sort, this shouldn't (and wouldn't) be a concern anybody considering the service as a career.
Grignard wrote:
I'm glad to know that by your assessment most Americans "are not to be trusted" with firearms. We should allow you to make all of our decisions for us. Apparently we're all culturally ignorant morons, or at least you've tried to make that clear in some of your recent posts . I mean, that is the conclusion I came to from your repeated snide and pedantic remarks and your decision to label a large group of Americans as "burnouts".
Wow. Cherry-picking for emotional resonance. What a surprise.
I have no issue with people making their own decisions, but when the consequences of those decisions (like owning a firearm while not being trained in its use) affect the rest of society I see no reason why society should not demand some form of proof of capacity. And, as a matter of record, no. Most Americans are not to be trusted with firearms. Why? Because most Americans have never used a gun, or been trained to use a gun, in the capacity which is frequently the subject of NRA propaganda. That being self-defense.
Just to be clear, because clarity is important. You are the one assuming that I believe Americans are culturally ignorant morons, you are the one making extrapolative statements based upon minimal evidence, and you are the one dragging this into a contest of personal egotism.
I'm not even going to address your other accusatory statements as they are not only in poor taste, but entirely without merit. I may have used some poor language recently, but that is no reason to make some foolish attempt at labeling me. But then you couldn't be doing such a thing, as that would make you a hypocrite.
dogma wrote:in peace time, there is little economic incentive to enlist for the very fact that climbing through the ranks is so difficult.
Given that America rarely goes more than a decade without protracted miltary action of some sort, this shouldn't (and wouldn't) be a concern anybody considering the service as a career.
Yeah it should. With the exception of major deployments, like Iraq, personnel are put on as quick a rotation as is logistically feasible. Both to preserve morale/psychology, and to keep benefit payments at a minimum.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I think you (or I) misunderstood.
I thought you were saying that in peacetime, the "problem" is that people won't have the ability advance because there won't be a war.
I think there will always be enough combat opportunities for any careerist.
Its complicated. Right now the services operate under the idea that there will always be men so long as we have the weapons, and this is partially true. However, as weapons get more complicated the training necessary to wield those weapons becomes more intense. As such, the services have to progressively raise the bar for enlisted men. This means actually getting into the Army/Navy/Air Force becomes a great deal more difficult, and staying in is harder still. This problem is further exasperated by the aforementioned system-centric mentality. Basically, insufficient funds are allotted to the maintenance of personnel so fewer guys are kept on, or allowed in. When the number of quality applicants is high this isn't a problem, but issues of economic feasibility have gradually lowered the number of desirable recruits over the last 20 years. Basically the services are simply not a great option if you want to go to college after your tour; there just isn't enough money in it to justify the lost time. The exception being wartime, but recruitment numbers unfailingly flag in such periods (at least post-Vietnam) as the risk massively increases. So does the reward, but we live in highly risk averse society thanks to the absence of a real social safety net. Plus, the VA is probably the most underfunded agency in the entirety of the United States, which doesn't help matters.
As such, during a time when recruiting standards should have been going up, they have actually been going down. People who should not be in the services are being admitted on a fairly regular basis for the simple fact that they need bodies; whether those bodies are attached to competent minds is a secondary concern. What's worse is that many competent soldiers are being pushed into the civilian life as their pay-grade makes them more of a liability (by perception, not reality) than an asset. Its like the defense sector is being run by the Walton family. All totaled the combination of fewer career guys, lower standards of admission, and quick turn-around has lead to a progressive 'dumbing down' of the armed forces; at least at the enlisted level.
Actually, I' not sure if I really addressed your point in there. At least not clearly. So I'll bullet out a response here:
1) They don't get many good recruits.
2) They don't spend their money in a way which allows them to keep the good recruits they do get.
3) Thus, there is little opportunity for advancement for someone who didn't go to one of the academies as it is enlisted men who get cut first.
Grignard wrote:
I'm glad to know that by your assessment most Americans "are not to be trusted" with firearms. We should allow you to make all of our decisions for us. Apparently we're all culturally ignorant morons, or at least you've tried to make that clear in some of your recent posts . I mean, that is the conclusion I came to from your repeated snide and pedantic remarks and your decision to label a large group of Americans as "burnouts".
Wow. Cherry-picking for emotional resonance. What a surprise.
I have no issue with people making their own decisions, but when the consequences of those decisions (like owning a firearm while not being trained in its use) affect the rest of society I see no reason why society should not demand some form of proof of capacity. And, as a matter of record, no. Most Americans are not to be trusted with firearms. Why? Because most Americans have never used a gun, or been trained to use a gun, in the capacity which is frequently the subject of NRA propaganda. That being self-defense.
Just to be clear, because clarity is important. You are the one assuming that I believe Americans are culturally ignorant morons, you are the one making extrapolative statements based upon minimal evidence, and you are the one dragging this into a contest of personal egotism.
I'm not even going to address your other accusatory statements as they are not only in poor taste, but entirely without merit. I may have used some poor language recently, but that is no reason to make some foolish attempt at labeling me. But then you couldn't be doing such a thing, as that would make you a hypocrite.
You didn't give any explanation, you just made the statement. In *that* capacity, you're probably correct that most Americans don't have that specific training. I agree that no one should consider carrying without said training. However, I don't see how that translates into "not to be trusted with firearms". That is a much more general statement.
You'll note dogma that I'm not really disagreeing with you at all, that isn't the point of the post. What I have a problem with is your delivery. Really, what exactly are people supposed to think. You post a study suggesting how ignorant we are of our own culture for no reason that I could determine other than pointing out that supposed ignorance. You need to tell the whole story, that being that such studies can often be misleading, and are highly dependent on how that data is collected. I corrected you earlier in this very thread for attacking a trivial spelling error before you even expressed your position. I'm not breaking your balls, I'm just asking you to realize how condescending and nasty your posts come off, at least to me. Sure, I realize that I can't speak for everyone on this board, but judging from what responses I have read, it seems that I'm not the only one with that interpretation.
I feel that you're biggest problem is basically what everyone's problem in this country has been lately. You're arguing to win, rather than persuade. That's really the only point of posting in the first place.
Furthermore, I find it maddening that you can't seem to realize that people sometimes make decisions based on feelings and intuition, rather than data, and that isn't always a bad thing. Sure, I understand the value of that approach, I do it every day at work, but I think because that is part of my job I know when to put it away.
Grignard wrote:
You didn't give any explanation, you just made the statement. In *that* capacity, you're probably correct that most Americans don't have that specific training. I agree that no one should consider carrying without said training. However, I don't see how that translates into "not to be trusted with firearms". That is a much more general statement.
It is, which also means it relevance to any given person is largely negligible. Most people don't have training, therefore most people shouldn't have firearms. Certainly this ignores personal variance, but policy isn't made for people. Its made for percentages.
Grignard wrote:
You'll note dogma that I'm not really disagreeing with you at all, that isn't the point of the post. What I have a problem with is your delivery. Really, what exactly are people supposed to think. You post a study suggesting how ignorant we are of our own culture for no reason that I could determine other than pointing out that supposed ignorance.
We're all ignorant. Its one of life's facts that there will always be more to know. Why do you assume that my willingness to make that point means that I exclude myself from it?
Grignard wrote:
You need to tell the whole story, that being that such studies can often be misleading, and are highly dependent on how that data is collected. I corrected you earlier in this very thread for attacking a trivial spelling error before you even expressed your position. I'm not breaking your balls, I'm just asking you to realize how condescending and nasty your posts come off, at least to me. Sure, I realize that I can't speak for everyone on this board, but judging from what responses I have read, it seems that I'm not the only one with that interpretation.
I assumed that would have been apparent from the beginning. All studies vary in accuracy based upon methodology. Why does that need to be said at every turn?
Grignard wrote:
I feel that you're biggest problem is basically what everyone's problem in this country has been lately. You're arguing to win, rather than persuade. That's really the only point of posting in the first place.
I'm not arguing to win, I'm just not arguing from an aesthetic perspective. People can be exceptions, that's perfectly fine. That's the beauty of statistics, they don't apply to individuals so there is no reason to be offended by their discussion.
Grignard wrote:
Furthermore, I find it maddening that you can't seem to realize that people sometimes make decisions based on feelings and intuition, rather than data, and that isn't always a bad thing. Sure, I understand the value of that approach, I do it every day at work, but I think because that is part of my job I know when to put it away.
I realize that people make choices based on feelings and intuition, but I've never debated from the standpoint of personally determined positivity. Why is it somehow personally insulting when I comment on a given trend? Why is a blanket statement always assumed to apply to all people it covers, especially when there are clear provisions made for exceptions?
Grignard wrote:
Furthermore, I find it maddening that you can't seem to realize that people sometimes make decisions based on feelings and intuition, rather than data, and that isn't always a bad thing. Sure, I understand the value of that approach, I do it every day at work, but I think because that is part of my job I know when to put it away.
I realize that people make choices based on feelings and intuition, but I've never debated from the standpoint of personally determined positivity. Why is it somehow personally insulting when I comment on a given trend? Why is a blanket statement always assumed to apply to all people it covers, especially when there are clear provisions made for exceptions?
I'm not sure what personally determined positivity means, except to guess your meaning from context. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words, of all the things you say/post whatever, that is about the least "personally insulting" thing I can think of. That isn't exactly what I meant by "maddening". I suppose it is just having a different manner of thinking. I do frequently, outside of a professional setting of course, determine my course of action or opinion immediately by "internal" feelings and intuition rather than "external" things like observation or data. Or, you can say I form an opinion or take a course of action *then* worry about supporting it instead of forming an opinion *after* evaluating the options. Ultimately, I'll grow impatient on trying to poke holes in an idea that I believe in anyhow. Different manner of thinking I suppose.
Grignard wrote:
I'm not sure what personally determined positivity means, except to guess your meaning from context.
Yeah, that was a rather awkward piece of gibberish. I've been reading Kant lately, so I suppose that's to be expected. A better way to put it would be: I try not to argue issues in terms of individual goods, but social ones.
Grignard wrote:
Perhaps that was a bad choice of words, of all the things you say/post whatever, that is about the least "personally insulting" thing I can think of. That isn't exactly what I meant by "maddening". I suppose it is just having a different manner of thinking. I do frequently, outside of a professional setting of course, determine my course of action or opinion immediately by "internal" feelings and intuition rather than "external" things like observation or data. Or, you can say I form an opinion or take a course of action *then* worry about supporting it instead of forming an opinion *after* evaluating the options. Ultimately, I'll grow impatient on trying to poke holes in an idea that I believe in anyhow. Different manner of thinking I suppose.
That makes sense. I tend to find myself more frequently at odds with impulsive folk than the more contemplative type.
Is it just me or is everyone missing the point on the whole 2nd amendment? The founding fathers placed protections in place to ensure that the status quo was enforced, meaning that if they were going to spend all this time and risk there lives to form a new and revolutionary government they needed a clause to protect it.
The United States was born of rebellion and maintains that its citizens cannot be disarmed. You are a nation of checks and balances, one of which contains the dual assertion that The People are armed and that tyranny should not be tolerated. The founding fathers wanted you to use your voices to keep your government from becoming corrupt and unconstitutional, but left you a loophole in case they managed to seize power regardless.
That being said I think I need a missile launcher, its about time for a revolution.
Kilkrazy wrote:It would seem sensible for a gun owner to take a competency test, the same as drivers and pilots.
Sure, but then that doesn't get at the heart of the matter.
It would be even more sensible to require any public speaker or writer to submit their statements for state review, approval, and correction prior to their being uttered or published, same as drivers and pilots.
... you are really messed up over there aren't you. When the 2nd ammendment was written you were a newly created nation that had wild frontiers, with the possibility of interference from another country (us ) still hanging over your head. So it's understandable that your founding fathers would want a system in place for the nation to protect itself. I wonder if those same founding fathers would pass the same ammendment if they could of seen in to the future? You have a population that gets drunk and pops a neighbour due to an arguement, teenagers who flip due to their hormones and take out their classmates, people high on drugs, people hacked off because they've had a bad day at work. Modern society isn't geared up for allowing the general public access to guns.
Before the gun supporters on the forum kick off and say, "I'm not like that", just stop and think... have you really and truely at some point in your life, even if briefly felt like slotting someone when you've been hacked off. I bet most have, even if you 14 at the time, and if you were that angry at the time and had access to a gun...?
As I said before though, pandoras box has been opened and you do have a violent criminal section of society, so it would be hard not to take up arms in you own home.
Just as a footnote, I do have a fascination with guns myself, I did a stint in the Territorial Army and enjoyed the thing of being on exercise with an assault rifle and going down the ranges. However I feel as a nation it is right that people shouldn't be allowed have guns at home. In fact as much as I used to think allowing people to keep guns at gun club would be ok, I even feel that is actually pointless. Unless you are an official competitor in a shooting sport, there is no need for some to go to the range and fire off a clip from a MP5. Yes it feels nice firing off a clip, but I'd have to question why.
jp400 wrote:First off...
Next time try multiquote bud, its on the forum for a reason.
My bad, lots of forums have multiquote and not all of them want you to use it (some prefer you don't), and I tend to forget which is which.
Second, I love how you seem So full of hate in your posts. Can it be that you cant respond with a reasonable answer backed up by anything other then snide comments and failed attempts at flamebaiting? Really Ol' Boy, it wll help people take you seriously around these parts.
Nah, I haven't got any hate. Dogma mentioned 'snide', that's probably closer to the truth. Or possibly 'derision'. But no malice.
Up next, I posted the links and let people read them and gather there own conclusions. All I said was that it was an interesting read. Also for research dont you think I clicked the posted links at the bottom? Dont you think its hard to argue with black and white from the AP? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Really.
Did you follow the link I posted, that noted each case of the NRA taking points out of context, or representing minor legal disputes as the entire content of a bill? Did you try to get any information on the topic beyond reading an NRA leaflet?
As for guns for Home/self defence. I felt that it was already worded well by others on this topic. So I didnt feel the need to comment. However since you asked I feel that it really boils down to a personal preference. I feel that I do need a gun for self defence, and that feeling is felt by most of America and most likely the world. If someone comes into my house and is a threat to me or my faimily you better believe im going to shoot the SOB first and ask questions later.
I feel that its Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
No, the discussion was about the need for guns to keep government under control.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sure, but then that doesn't get at the heart of the matter.
It would be even more sensible to require any public speaker or writer to submit their statements for state review, approval, and correction prior to their being uttered or published, same as drivers and pilots.
Words don't kill people. Bullets do. There is a degree of finality to gun mishaps which makes such comparisons kind of absurd.
I realize that you're referencing a citizen's capacity to overthrow the state, but look at a different way. If the state every really needed to be overthrown, do you really think that the 2nd amendment would be an impediment to the denial of your right the bear arms?
people getting hacked off and killing other people wouldent stop if guns were not allowed.
o i know, lets ban all bladed weapons (from swords, to kicthen knives, to axes... if it has a blade it gets baned) and bows, and all easily swung blunt objects (sorry guys, no more baseball), and rope, and thin wire, and chain, cars (so a hacked off guy cant run over other people).... i could go on and on with this list.
i am just using the same logic as the anit gun people use "if we ban the guns, then gun crime will go down"
well, if we ban all weapons of all kinds, then all of the crime will go down right
JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be even more sensible to require any public speaker or writer to submit their statements for state review, approval, and correction prior to their being uttered or published, same as drivers and pilots.
Words don't kill people. Bullets do. There is a degree of finality to gun mishaps which makes such comparisons kind of absurd.
I realize that you're referencing a citizen's capacity to overthrow the state,
No, I'm not. I'm referencing the average citizen's poor speaking and writing skills.
And as for what's worse, "incite to riot" accomplishes a lot without any guns being needed.
The point is that, if guns requiring licensing by the state, then so should any kind of public speech. If guns should be restricted, then censorship should be supported. Simple as that.
Envy89 wrote:people getting hacked off and killing other people wouldent stop if guns were not allowed.
o i know, lets ban all bladed weapons (from swords, to kicthen knives, to axes... if it has a blade it gets baned) and bows, and all easily swung blunt objects (sorry guys, no more baseball), and rope, and thin wire, and chain, cars (so a hacked off guy cant run over other people).... i could go on and on with this list.
i am just using the same logic as the anit gun people use "if we ban the guns, then gun crime will go down"
well, if we ban all weapons of all kinds, then all of the crime will go down right
Hmmm... I love that kinda of reponse, it reminds me of playground humour, "you smell" sorta of answer to someone you don't like. Nobody said that crime would drop if you ban guns, nor would it stop someone who wanted to go and hurt someone. However lashing out with a sword or a knife at school doesn't have the same impact as letting off a full clip. Somebody coming at you with a lump of wood, length of chain, thin wire, baseball bat, frozen turkey etc can be defended against or run away from. To use your car means you've got to keep that anger going until you have the chance to lash out, but having a gun means you could act on that impulse there and then. If you're going to keep that anger going until your chance appears, then there is no hope for you anyway it''s a mute point.
If you feel THAT strongly about the right to defend your home, then why not restrict all public owned guns to manual loading shotguns? You get 2 shots, which is enough to stop someone in your home, as they will be at close range and in a confined space. This also has the benefit of if the bad guys storms the school, they only get two shots before having to reload, thus giving people the chance to run or crack them over the head with a chair.
The other argurement put forward is the whole concept of defending your freedom against the government or invaders is just so out there it's unreal. Who the hell is going to invade you? If so what on earth do you think your armed forces are for? I think there'll do a damn sight better job then joe public as you wouldn't be fighting Redcoats. Even if you kept your weapons to kill the invader, what do you think there response would be to resistance? Yep you got it, the same as US armed forces, bring in the big guns and sit back, with the added luxury of not having to worry about innocent bystanders.
Let me ask you this, if modern society frowns upon physical violence, and has laws to stop you going around thumping someone because you disagree with them, why is there still so much resistance to giving up something that is designed purely for the purpose of killing? Unlike a blade, which started off as a useful flint tool, that evolved over time and can be used for many things, the gun was simply designed to kill the your enemy, end of.
Its sad Logo, but he does have a valid point. Sadly people do feel the way that he is describing.
Kinda like the morons that want to ban .50 Bmg rifles cause they are afraid people will take down Commercial jetliners on takeoff or landing....
Or people who want to ban every knife over a certain length because people wont rob stores/people without them.....
Dogma, my main thing with you is that you tend to hide behind facts that based of my real life experiences with the Army are so far off base that its unreal.
If recruitment was so far off base then how come every BDE ive ever come across that actually ment something was always over strength?
Sure retainment may be down, but look at any other job out there and see how many people stick with it over 3-6 years for life. (Average entry enlistment is 3-6 yrs)
Also in that timeline how many people change jobs in that timeframe?
While I was in....
I was never broke....
I was never denied college...
College was paid for....
I had my Shelter/food/basic needs paid for...
Paid Vacation.....
Givin all the Honor and Respect one could possibly want.
Traveled the world (Non-combat) for free....
Never felt the impact of any of your statistical shortcomming that seem to plague the armed forces.
Plus statistics on PTSD are so jacked up its not even funny.
If I wanted a free paycheck for the rest of my life all I had to say was "I dream that im back in country every night and I see Haji when I sleep too!"
Yes it would have been that simple.
In fact Im still getting a phone call from Inactive Reserve counselers about ever 6 months fishing for the PTSD.
Now how many people do you think are scum enough to take this route? Sadly alot.
Like I said earlier ive only met one guy that honestly had the PTSD.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm referencing the average citizen's poor speaking and writing skills.
Then you're erecting a strawman by equating speaking to gun ownership. Which is much, much worse.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
And as for what's worse, "incite to riot" accomplishes a lot without any guns being needed.
But there are multiple decisions involved when a riot occurs. Sure, someone may act as it s face, but everyone else still has to choose to follow. No one gets a choice when it comes to being shot.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
The point is that, if guns requiring licensing by the state, then so should any kind of public speech. If guns should be restricted, then censorship should be supported. Simple as that.
Wolfstan wrote:If you feel THAT strongly about the right to defend your home, then why not restrict all public owned guns to manual loading shotguns? You get 2 shots, which is enough to stop someone in your home, as they will be at close range and in a confined space.
That's pretty good as long as I can be sure that my home will never be invaded by more than 1 bad guy, and that I'll have time and space to maneuver that shotgun. I guess, over where you are, burglars are a lot more polite, they knock on the door and tell you "Burglar, I'm finishing a bit of tea before I come in..." :S
Wolfstan wrote:This also has the benefit of if the bad guys storms the school, they only get two shots before having to reload, thus giving people the chance to run or crack them over the head with a chair.
Wow, I wasn't at all aware that criminals were so law-abiding while they committed crimes. I always thought, by definition, you could assume criminals would NOT follow the law. For example, in the US, it's against the law to even use firearms in the commision of a crime. So by your logic, it's never going to be an issue at all. :S
jp400 wrote:
Dogma, my main thing with you is that you tend to hide behind facts that based of my real life experiences with the Army are so far off base that its unreal.
If recruitment was so far off base then how come every BDE ive ever come across that actually ment something was always over strength?
Because they're accepting lower quality recruits. I'm not saying that you are such a recruit, but its pretty well documented that the standards for enlistment have decreased fairly steadily over the last 8 years. While an increase in selectivity, combined with a short service life, has lowered the overall number of quality applicants over the last 20.
Here's a couple articles that talk about my position.
This one from Time magazine.
This is a report on officer shortages which isn't really what I've been discussing, but is interesting none the less.
This is from the Rand institute, which I normally abhor. They do have some interesting stuff in there though.
jp400 wrote:
Sure retainment may be down, but look at any other job out there and see how many people stick with it over 3-6 years for life. (Average entry enlistment is 3-6 yrs)
Also in that timeline how many people change jobs in that timeframe?
Comparing the services to the corporate sector and simultaneously treating it like a magical gateway to success is non-congruent. Sure, people can succeed in the armed forces, but they can also succeed in the corporate world. And actually tend to do so at a much higher rate.
jp400 wrote:
While I was in....
I was never broke....
I was never denied college...
College was paid for....
I had my Shelter/food/basic needs paid for...
Paid Vacation.....
Givin all the Honor and Respect one could possibly want.
Traveled the world (Non-combat) for free....
Never felt the impact of any of your statistical shortcomming that seem to plague the armed forces.
You wouldn't because the statistical short-comings have little to do with individual soldiers, but a great deal to with the state of the services. And their status as form of upward mobility for those without options.
jp400 wrote:
Plus statistics on PTSD are so jacked up its not even funny.
If I wanted a free paycheck for the rest of my life all I had to say was "I dream that im back in country every night and I see Haji when I sleep too!"
Yes it would have been that simple.
In fact Im still getting a phone call from Inactive Reserve counselers about ever 6 months fishing for the PTSD.
Part of that is the VA pushing for more funding, which they sorely need. The other part is that unreported PTSD creates a terrible PR situation which can severely hamper recruitment. You are right though, PTSD is nominally over-reported. Just like all psychological trauma.
jp400 wrote:
Now how many people do you think are scum enough to take this route? Sadly alot.
Like I said earlier ive only met one guy that honestly had the PTSD.
I don't know. I think you might be over criticizing your fellow servicemen. PTSD doesn't have to be debilitating to affect your life, and I'd rather see soldiers receive too much care than too little.
I'm saying that my Second Amendment Rights should be no more infringed than your First Amendment Rights.
It's a very simple concept.
And I'm saying that is faulty comparison as armament and speech are completely incomparable rights.
Even if they were similar, you don't have the freedom to verbally assault someone as it is deleterious to a free society. The same can be said of unrestricted gun ownership. It negatively impacts society by opening the door to the infringement of individual rights by other individuals.
I'm saying that my Second Amendment Rights should be no more infringed than your First Amendment Rights.
It's a very simple concept.
And I'm saying that is faulty comparison as armament and speech are completely incomparable rights.
Even if they were similar, you don't have the freedom to verbally assault someone as it is deleterious to a free society. The same can be said of unrestricted gun ownership. It negatively impacts society by opening the door to the infringement of individual rights by other individuals.
Dogma, buddy, I don't quite see how they are incomparable rights. I can't think of any internally consistent argument for the enormous expansion of the right to free speech that wouldn't also apply to the second amendment.
And you are comparing illegal conduct, that is conduct that is inherently harmful (verbal assault) to the potential for harm with deadly weapons. What you're essentially trying to argue is not verbal assault laws, but rather the old "fighting words" doctrine. under that doctrine, those words that would cause violence or a violent reaction in the listener were banned. Thus, you could regulate content by saying it was too dangerous. The Supreme Court eventually narrowed that doctrine to immediate invitations to brawl.
Owning certain weapons is similar to that, i think. Certain weapons can be very dangerous (like speaking against war in a pro-war town) but it still should be protected. Only the violent conduct should be prohibited.
I agree that some regulation is allowed, after all speech can't kill a person while a handgun can, but speech is regulated through parade permits, time and manner restrictions, etc.
I just think that any argument that speech is an absolute right while gun ownership isn't is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. Now, I don't think we should only have the rights enumberated in the constitution, but I think giving any of them up, even if it's one you don't like, is a bad thing.
Polonius wrote:
Dogma, buddy, I don't quite see how they are incomparable rights. I can't think of any internally consistent argument for the enormous expansion of the right to free speech that wouldn't also apply to the second amendment.
They're incomparable in the sense that while the same logical process might apply to arguments for either right, the degree to which those arguments can be reasonably pushed is entirely unrelated. To use DD's example: It is not reasonable to assume that, because we force people to take firearm training courses, we can presume to do the same for the right to public speech. The logic is there, but the premises are different enough that concurrent logic is not sufficient to establish justification for equivalent regulation.
Polonius wrote:
And you are comparing illegal conduct, that is conduct that is inherently harmful (verbal assault) to the potential for harm with deadly weapons. What you're essentially trying to argue is not verbal assault laws, but rather the old "fighting words" doctrine. under that doctrine, those words that would cause violence or a violent reaction in the listener were banned. Thus, you could regulate content by saying it was too dangerous. The Supreme Court eventually narrowed that doctrine to immediate invitations to brawl.
True, it was a poor analogy on my part. I didn't think it through all the way. The intent was to convey how we might restrict freedom of speech in order to preserve the integrity of that freedom.
Though, now that I think of it, there might be some mileage in pressing a similar argument for the 2nd amendment. Essentially, if we presume that the right to bear arms is to be interpreted as the right to security it could follow that certain arms (assault weapons, explosives, et al) serve to negatively impact the security of others in much the same way that verbal abuse serves to constrict free speech.
Polonius wrote:
Owning certain weapons is similar to that, i think. Certain weapons can be very dangerous (like speaking against war in a pro-war town) but it still should be protected. Only the violent conduct should be prohibited.
I agree that some regulation is allowed, after all speech can't kill a person while a handgun can, but speech is regulated through parade permits, time and manner restrictions, etc.
That's really what I was trying to get at.
Polonius wrote:
I just think that any argument that speech is an absolute right while gun ownership isn't is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. Now, I don't think we should only have the rights enumberated in the constitution, but I think giving any of them up, even if it's one you don't like, is a bad thing.
I don't view either right as an absolute in the sense that they are above reprisal. That's one of the brilliant aspects of the Constitution; its illusory language serves as a perpetual source of debate, which forces the continual reevaluation of the means we utilize to regulate ourselves. However, as I said earlier, I do feel it is impossible to treat the freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms as though legislation regarding one can be indicative of steps that must be taken regarding the other.
I think this may be a good time to point out that technically speaking outside military use in the US true "Assault Rifles" dont exist.
Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
-Department of the Army Deff-
Note the phrase "Secective-Fire." This means that the rifle needs to be at least semi and 3 or 4 round burst capable. What you get when you go to your friendly local gun shop and pull an Ar-15 off the shelf is a Semi-Automatic sporting rifle that looks much like a Colt M-4 carbine.
Polonius wrote:
Dogma, buddy, I don't quite see how they are incomparable rights. I can't think of any internally consistent argument for the enormous expansion of the right to free speech that wouldn't also apply to the second amendment.
They're incomparable in the sense that while the same logical process might apply to arguments for either right, the degree to which those arguments can be reasonably pushed is entirely unrelated. To use DD's example: It is not reasonable to assume that, because we force people to take firearm training courses, we can presume to do the same for the right to public speech. The logic is there, but the premises are different enough that concurrent logic is not sufficient to establish justification for equivalent regulation.
Why not? What is different about the right to bear arms that makes it less broad?
You can't say it's the impact it has on other people, because speech that impacts others can and often is highly regulated: you can't march down Wall St. at 3 in the afternoon every day, you can't use a megaphone at your 2am rally.
Clearly there are some differences in the nature and application of the rights, but since the right to own guns is a consitutional right, any banning of weapons would have to meet strict scrutiny: meaning there is a compelling state interest at stake and the law is drawn narrowly. Artillery, mortars, landmines, poison gas and heavy machine guns probably are all so hugely destructive that there is a state interest in banning them, or only allowing highly trained people to own them.
Obviously none of the rights are absolute, they all can be curtailed, but the courts have pretty consistently broadened those rights over the last 75 years. I just don't see a good legal or logical argument for why gun rights shouldn't enjoy the same broadening.
Polonius wrote:
Why not? What is different about the right to bear arms that makes it less broad?
You can't say it's the impact it has on other people, because speech that impacts others can and often is highly regulated: you can't march down Wall St. at 3 in the afternoon every day, you can't use a megaphone at your 2am rally.
Public speech without proper regulation might cause a few people to lose some sleep. Using an assault weapon without proper training might cause a few people to lose their lives. It is the relative severity of the immediate consequences which merits more stringent regulation of firearms. And also that severity which keeps the premises of either argument from serving as evidence in the other; at least insofar as you can use softer regulations on speech as a means of advocating softer limits on firearms. It doesn't make sense to say something to the effect of: "We don't license the possession of megaphones, therefore we should not license the possession of firearms."
Polonius wrote:
Clearly there are some differences in the nature and application of the rights, but since the right to own guns is a consitutional right, any banning of weapons would have to meet strict scrutiny: meaning there is a compelling state interest at stake and the law is drawn narrowly. Artillery, mortars, landmines, poison gas and heavy machine guns probably are all so hugely destructive that there is a state interest in banning them, or only allowing highly trained people to own them.
Certainly for a ban that is the case, but I've not been discussing a ban of any weapons. The case against the type of arms you describe is fairly obvious in that they are all, by definition, fairly indiscriminate. However, with regard to other weapons (rifles, handguns, shotguns) I don't think it is a great constriction of rights to require that a person be licensed, and educated, in their use. As you say, there is a direct analog in that the use of megaphones, and other sound projectors, in public demonstration is regulated for the public good.
Polonius wrote:
Obviously none of the rights are absolute, they all can be curtailed, but the courts have pretty consistently broadened those rights over the last 75 years. I just don't see a good legal or logical argument for why gun rights shouldn't enjoy the same broadening.
With that broadening came additional restriction. The progressively expanding disruptive capacity of public protest is a good example. As it became easier for demonstration to obstruct the flow of daily life the regulations on that demonstration grew more strict: assembly requiring a permit in many municipalities. Therefore it follows, at least in general trend, that the increasing capacity of armament to do harm to the public should follow a pattern of progressively greater restriction. Especially with regard to the specific licensing of individuals to acquire certain weapons on the fulfillment of a given set of conditions.
Wolfstan wrote:Nobody said that crime would drop if you ban guns.
.......... then WHY do peopel want to ban them????
jp400 wrote:Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
-Department of the Army Deff-
if i dident have the new american anthem video as a sig i would sig that.
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790
"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Envy89 wrote:
.......... then WHY do peopel want to ban them????
One of the reasons is that many people who want to see them banned have an unusual fear. Not of firearms, but of the people who actively seek to acquire them. They think of gun enthusiasts, and see Deliverance.
Another reason is that there is some significant concern for a kind of 'civil arms race' between the police and criminals. The thinking being that legal assault weapons are cheaper, and more easily acquired than illegal ones. Thus requiring more stringent, and therefore expensive, standards for law enforcement officers.
Envy89 wrote:
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790
"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Quotes which have no bearing on the decision to regulate the bearing of arms. Once you open the door to a kind of social studies argument you're essentially doing the same for the other side. At which point the goal posts will be set to something like the "nearest social good", and you'll be using evidence from 200 years ago. The best argument for 2nd amendment rights is one based legal history; basically what Polonius offered. You also might get some mileage out of the difficulty in defining assault weapons if you're arguing against a ban, but most serious debates never feature such talk.
"Another reason is that there is some significant concern for a kind of 'civil arms race' between the police and criminals. The thinking being that legal assault weapons are cheaper, and more easily acquired than illegal ones."
-Dogma
I can promise you that full auto firearms are cheaper to get/make then they are to buy off the shelf. Once again any law thats based off this train of thought only hurts the average person like you and me, not the criminal.
jp400 wrote:
I can promise you that full auto firearms are cheaper to get/make then they are to buy off the shelf. Once again any law thats based off this train of thought only hurts the average person like you and me, not the criminal.
The concern isn't about assault weapons being bought off the shelf, but about them being stolen from legitimate owners after their purchase. About 78% of the weapons used in criminal activity come from within the United States, and a little over 50% of inmates have stolen a firearm of some type; suggesting that the primary source of illicit firearms is theft from legal owners.
Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK there are plenty of illegal weapons brought in from the continent.
But ultimately there are vastly less guns in the hands of criminals than in the US. You can see this directly reflected in the guns used in all manner of crimes, particularly homicide. There are obviously a lot of other factors at work in the comparison, but it's very hard to argue that making it harder for people to get their hands on guns doesn't make it harder for criminals to get their hands on the same.
sebster wrote:t's very hard to argue that making it harder for people to get their hands on guns doesn't make it harder for criminals to get their hands on the same.
O RLY?
Is there any college campus in the US where you can't buy weed?
dogma wrote:Citing a ubiquitous illegal substance is not evidence that making said substance legal would not substantially increase supply.
And yet it clearly shows that attempting to restrict legal access to illegal stuff appears to have no effect on criminal access to said stuff.
What's next, you want to argue that a similar situation doesn't exist for crack?
Notionally, there is extremely limited legal usage for these things. Legal use is highly restricted. And yet, they aren't hard to get at all for a enormous number of "criminals".
So therefore, the problem isn't supply, but criminal behaviour which is undeterred and only insignificantly restricted.
dogma wrote:Academically talented kids who want to join the services go to Annapolis, West Point, or the Air Force Academy. They do not enlist, at least not in appreciable numbers. Enlist is a very specific bit of terminology.
Again, not necessarily true, most of them go through ROTC. You'd be surprised the amount of animosity against "Academy Kids" there actually is in the Air Force. Most of that has to do with how arrogant and whorish they are. Of course, when there's a 8-1 male/female ratio and the females have dated everyone in their class(generally), it's hard not to see them as such, especially once the males realize there's options outside of the military to sleep with. Also, most Academy kids don't know how the military actually works(they think the Academy is a good indication, it's not), whereas a good number of ROTC graduates(again, most of them engineers and other such hard degrees) are either prior enlisted or had immediate family members in the military and know that just because you're an officer you're not the "sh**" and you don't know more than your NCOs.
"
want an AK-47, century arms can sell you a perfectly legal one 
in the catagory of good ideas.... exactly why i proposed a mental exam.
) i belive the only people who can legaly own a full auto gun is police (for police or personal use), and licnsed gun dealers.
)
