Thought this was interesting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**legoburner**

malfred wrote:Print my own models? And get my hands dirty?

No way, that is what the robot slaves are for.

I'll drag this topic waaaay offtopic if I keep going so maybe I'll bow out here

**Frazzled**

Envy89 wrote:
sexiest_hero wrote: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.

Ditto for truthiness.

**Envy89**

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.

Linky
http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1399%2DX

**Grignard**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

Linky
http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1399%2DX

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

**burb1996**

*edit* How in the heck did I not see all these posts? Man way off topic now...deleted

**Grignard**

burb1996 wrote:*edit* How in the heck did I not see all these posts? Man way off topic now...deleted

Huh?

**sebster**

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.

**Grignard**

sebster wrote:
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.

**Envy89**

how so Sebster?

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.

**M_Stress**

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.

read more here:
http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/default_e.asp

**sebster**

Envy89 wrote:how so Sebster?

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.

**Grignard**

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.

**Envy89**

@ sebster.

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.

**reds8n**

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

The army is very keen on bayonets.

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.

The regiment has won 16 Victoria Crosses.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/ne...l&siteid=89488

From a few friends who have served over their/around I gather that special forces use knives/similar quite often ( makes sense I suppose).

**Platuan4th**

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

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.

**dogma**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**Grignard**

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?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**Polonius**

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.

**sebster**

Envy89 wrote:@ sebster.

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.

**sebster**

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.

**sebster**

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**

dogma wrote:
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).

**Frazzled**

Yes, Dad loved the Corps. The officers were

holes, just like he was. The Air Force officers were just

holes.

**Grignard**

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**

Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?