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.

Then there's the kind of mindset Rosie O'Donell has. She comes out against guns at every chance, but has armed bodyguards.

Relapse wrote:Then there's the kind of mindset Rosie O'Donell has. She comes out against guns at every chance, but has armed bodyguards.

Objection: Irrelevant.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Relapse wrote:Then there's the kind of mindset Rosie O'Donell has. She comes out against guns at every chance, but has armed bodyguards.

Objection: Irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevent in the current discusion,but I do see the relevence in the "larger picture".
Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.
However,not rellevant to the current discusion so....on with the show...

Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.

Not entirely. It's a pretty black and white viewpoint when one can consider someone else a hypocrite for being pro gun control while having armed security. Do you view police who are pro gun control with the same level of hypocrisy? What about government officials? What exactly is hypocritical about utilizing professionals with registered weapons performing a lawful and often times necessary act while believing that the prevalence of guns in america is something to be worked against? Being against guns doesn't mean being against security, especially when you're a well known celebrity. I'm against trans fats, that doesn't mean I'm against eating food.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.

Not entirely. It's a pretty black and white viewpoint when one can consider someone else a hypocrite for being pro gun control while having armed security. Do you view police who are pro gun control with the same level of hypocrisy?

I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.
A media personality grand standing about "banning guns" is a bit different than an officer recognizing the dangers of " an UZI in every hand".

But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.

If the average joe cannot buy an M16 or AK47 because a .45 is enough for defense than Lambos and Vipers should be illegal for anyone not a professional race car driver to own as a Ford Focus or Chevy Malibu is enough car to get the average joe to work and back.

Fateweaver wrote:But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.

If the average joe cannot buy an M16 or AK47 because a .45 is enough for defense than Lambos and Vipers should be illegal for anyone not a professional race car driver to own as a Ford Focus or Chevy Malibu is enough car to get the average joe to work and back.

Ok Fate,your messing with my money now,I make my living repairing those exact types of cars when some "unqaulified individule" bumps em a bit to hard.
Never mess with another mans livelyhood

Lord-Loss wrote:Your sig seems to think that guns make the world so round.

That's only a few of a list of things that I have that are anti-gun control.

Seriously, anyone thinking one Amendment should be abolished should be for abolishing them all. Take away one right you might as well take them all away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.

If the average joe cannot buy an M16 or AK47 because a .45 is enough for defense than Lambos and Vipers should be illegal for anyone not a professional race car driver to own as a Ford Focus or Chevy Malibu is enough car to get the average joe to work and back.

Ok Fate,your messing with my money now,I make my living repairing those exact types of cars when some "unqaulified individule" bumps em a bit to hard.
Never mess with another mans livelyhood

Just pointing out the absurdity of being anti-assault rifle or anti-sniper rifle (I mean seriously, most 30-06's or .308's with high powered scope could be a sniper rifle and those are mainly used for deer hunting).

I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.

What about political personalities? A senator is only different from a celebrity in so many ways, few of which truly pertain to the need for security.

If they didn't need it they wouldn't have it. Armed 24 hour security doesn't exactly come cheap, and being a politically vocal celebrity isn't the safest thing to be.

But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.

A viper is a high quality high performance car. Which is a vehicle.

A glock 18C is a high quality high performance machine pistol. Which is a deadly weapon which can not be utilized for hunting.

Vehicles: Legal
Deadly weapons: Illegal

High performance vehicles: Fun, loud, expensive.
High performance weapons: Deadly, effective, expensive.

Man, things that get you from one place to another and things designed to kill multiple people very quickly with no other use ARE EXACTLY THE SAME thank you for enlightening me.

Seriously, anyone thinking one Amendment should be abolished should be for abolishing them all. Take away one right you might as well take them all away.

Fateweaver: Hyperbolic, emotional, prone to extremism in opinion.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.

What about political personalities? A senator is only different from a celebrity in so many ways, few of which truly pertain to the need for security.

If they didn't need it they wouldn't have it. Armed 24 hour security doesn't exactly come cheap, and being a politically vocal celebrity isn't the safest thing to be..

I do indeed see your point.

Just pointing out the absurdity of being anti-assault rifle or anti-sniper rifle (I mean seriously, most 30-06's or .308's with high powered scope could be a sniper rifle and those are mainly used for deer hunting).

I agree here. Weapons functionally and practically incapable of semi auto or automatic fire really aren't a danger to the public. We've been calling them hunting rifles for years and one does the job as well as any other. The line between hunting and sniper rifles is very thin, and only recently did the crossover between the two begin to cease (most weapons functioning solely as sniper rifles being capable of semi or automatic fire).

Fateweaver wrote:Seriously, anyone thinking one Amendment should be abolished should be for abolishing them all. Take away one right you might as well take them all away.

Here... problem solved. You can have only this, and nothing else.



Instead of compounding this same exact conversation that has been had many, many, many times before on this board. I am just going to go with the flow... and add +1 to Shuma's post.

Shuma wrote:Fateweaver: Hyperbolic, emotional, prone to extremism in opinion.

+1

Crisis averted, go back to your activities citizens.

Deadly weapons = not illegal in most States.

Point is Shuma, if we are going to class certain weapons illegal because you don't need an AK47 to defend your home (and really, most people will go for their pistol before reaching for their AK) due to them being "overkill" because a .45 or .38. or 9mm will suffice than Vipers and Lambos should be illegal because a Ford Focus will do the same thing as a Lambo, just not as fast nor will it get you laid as much (if at all).

People with money to burn by Lambos and Vipers because they might be fun to drive and are a status symbol. People buying AK's and M1 Carbines are not buying them mainly for home defense. They buy them because they are fun to shoot.

An AK in the hands of someone not intending to kill with it is no more dangerous than a 9mm pistol. A Lambo in the hands of someone with that kind of driving experience is no more dangerous than a Ford Focus. It's idiots that make Ak's deadlier than they have to be and punishing the non-idiots, the non-socio and psychopaths is not going to make the country a safer place.

Fateweaver wrote:Point is Shuma, if we are going to class certain weapons illegal because you don't need an AK47 to defend your home (and really, most people will go for their pistol before reaching for their AK) due to them being "overkill" because a .45 or .38. or 9mm will suffice than Vipers and Lambos should be illegal because a Ford Focus will do the same thing as a Lambo, just not as fast nor will it get you laid as much (if at all).

At the very least, we already have regulations on many dangerous 'weapons'. A freaking piano is a weapon in the right hands, that is not the point. The effective lethality of a weapon is EXTREMELY important, and not a matter of 'what will suffice'. A bunch of napalm is bound to stop anyone in their tracks, in a very abrupt, and effective way... now have fun burning your house down... Except with an AK47, fully automatic, unloading through walls, into neighbors houses, your most definitely not the only one to be dealing with the consequences of your decisions.

gak... we should all just walk around strapped with freaking dynamite... NOW THAT... would be able to protect me from anything.

You cannot own dynamite, nor can you own any form of lethal missile in most situations. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to own a fully-automatic AK47. It is ludicrous to expect that to actually be effective at protecting anything. More AK47's, Tec-9's, and the like are in the hands of criminals, than average citizens (who are likely owning them completely illegally as well, making them criminals of a different sort).

Your brush is massive, tone it down, and people will take you more seriously.

People with money to burn by Lambos and Vipers because they might be fun to drive and are a status symbol. People buying AK's and M1 Carbines are not buying them mainly for home defense. They buy them because they are fun to shoot.

Something I think you reuse to understand is that one is a status symbol while being a military assault rifle designed to kill multiple people over long distances. The other is a fast car.

An AK in the hands of someone not intending to kill with it is no more dangerous than a 9mm pistol.

Well, the ak specifically is in fact more dangrous due to the much increased lethality of 7.62 over 9mm rounds and the ease over over penetration (making accidents both more likely and lethal). But thats not the issue. The issue is that in the hands of someone that does intend to kill they are VASTLY more dangerous than a standard pistol.

A Lambo in the hands of someone with that kind of driving experience is no more dangerous than a Ford Focus.

Only if they are driven the same, in which case they aren't functionally different because they are going the same speed on the same roads. Sports cars are significantly more likely to be in accidents than standard sedans. It's one of the reasons they are expensive to insure (aside from their costs).

It's idiots that make Ak's deadlier than they have to be and punishing the non-idiots, the non-socio and psychopaths is not going to make the country a safer place.

Thats cool and all, but you're pastime is playing with deadly weapons designed to kill people as if they're toys and you're trying to draw a parallel to people that drive cars that can go fast. They aren't equal.

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

Why am I even trying to have this conversation? You don't use logic or sense.

Shuma wrote:Only if they are driven the same, in which case they aren't functionally different because they are going the same speed on the same roads. Sports cars are significantly more likely to be in accidents than standard sedans. It's one of the reasons they are expensive to insure (aside from their costs).

He countered his own argument with that statement.

If a sports car (AK47, Automatic), is the same for all demonstrable purposes, as a standard 4 seater (9mm, Semi-automatic), then there is absolutely no reason to get a sports car at all. Besides to run around like James Bond, or Rambo or something.

The right to protect your fragile, fragile egos... .

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Point is Shuma, if we are going to class certain weapons illegal because you don't need an AK47 to defend your home (and really, most people will go for their pistol before reaching for their AK) due to them being "overkill" because a .45 or .38. or 9mm will suffice than Vipers and Lambos should be illegal because a Ford Focus will do the same thing as a Lambo, just not as fast nor will it get you laid as much (if at all).

At the very least, we already have regulations on many dangerous 'weapons'. A freaking piano is a weapon in the right hands, that is not the point. The effective lethality of a weapon is EXTREMELY important, and not a matter of 'what will suffice'. A bunch of napalm is bound to stop anyone in their tracks, in a very abrupt, and effective way... now have fun burning your house down... Except with an AK47, fully automatic, unloading through walls, into neighbors houses, your most definitely not the only one to be dealing with the consequences of your decisions.

gak... we should all just walk around strapped with freaking dynamite... NOW THAT... would be able to protect me from anything.

You cannot own dynamite, nor can you own any form of lethal missile in most situations. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to own a fully-automatic AK47. It is ludicrous to expect that to actually be effective at protecting anything. More AK47's, Tec-9's, and the like are in the hands of criminals, than average citizens (who are likely owning them completely illegally as well, making them criminals of a different sort).

Your brush is massive, tone it down, and people will take you more seriously.

I'm more in agreement with Wrexs' view points here,while it would be great to live in a world where "home defence" wasn't an issue,I don't see any reason for owning an AK-47 or any other wepon of this type.
I don't support "gun grabbers" based on the slippery slope politics and lack of moderation in the "grab",ie: start with AK-47s and soon the only legal firearm to own is a musket.
However,if a competent and reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms where to appear I would more than likely support it.
I mean honestly,I own firearms to protect my family,so if by getting UZIs (etc) of the streets my family is safer,I'm all for it.

My main point is just that even if you are trying to 'even the odds' by owning ridicilous firepower, the fact that you are in a position to protect, rather than attack; puts you at a major disadvantage.

I'm no squid, I can make tough decisions, but shootouts with local gangs, using ever-increasing firepower. Well... that is just ridiculous to me. Handguns, Shotguns, Standard hunting rifles, all seem like viable options for home defense.

Anything that can penetrate two people with one shot... the math really isn't that complicated, that kind of situation involving a heavy fire-fight... usually ends in severe casualties in an even setting. Fighting in a house with anything besides a pistol and a freaking bat, I just don't understand.

Even shotguns appear to be far too unwieldy. Cross-bows on the other hand, well... I can dig that.



Awesome.

ShumaGorath wrote:

People with money to burn by Lambos and Vipers because they might be fun to drive and are a status symbol. People buying AK's and M1 Carbines are not buying them mainly for home defense. They buy them because they are fun to shoot.

Something I think you reuse to understand is that one is a status symbol while being a military assault rifle designed to kill multiple people over long distances. The other is a fast car.

An AK in the hands of someone not intending to kill with it is no more dangerous than a 9mm pistol.

Well, the ak specifically is in fact more dangrous due to the much increased lethality of 7.62 over 9mm rounds and the ease over over penetration (making accidents both more likely and lethal). But thats not the issue. The issue is that in the hands of someone that does intend to kill they are VASTLY more dangerous than a standard pistol.

A Lambo in the hands of someone with that kind of driving experience is no more dangerous than a Ford Focus.

Only if they are driven the same, in which case they aren't functionally different because they are going the same speed on the same roads. Sports cars are significantly more likely to be in accidents than standard sedans. It's one of the reasons they are expensive to insure (aside from their costs).

It's idiots that make Ak's deadlier than they have to be and punishing the non-idiots, the non-socio and psychopaths is not going to make the country a safer place.

Thats cool and all, but you're pastime is playing with deadly weapons designed to kill people as if they're toys and you're trying to draw a parallel to people that drive cars that can go fast. They aren't equal.

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

Why am I even trying to have this conversation? You don't use logic or sense.

No, being a typical liberal you refute logic and common sense.

Slaves were slaves because they had no control over their actions, someone else told them what they could and could not do. Removing someone rights (freedom of speech, right to fair trials, right to own a firearm, the right to not incriminate one self) you are in essence making them slaves.

Fitzz, normally we agree on things but I have to reiterate the point that making AK's and Uzi's illegal will not get them off the streets. Marijuana is illegal for non-medicinal purposes (and medi-marijuana is a joke in and of itself) but you still see it on the streets. Same with any other drug that is not legal. Making something illegal will not make it go away. It was tried with alcohol and that failed. If people want something they will get it no matter the legality or not. I personally know at least a dozen people I could score Meth or Pot from. If a 40k nerd like me can score meth than that means someone with real interest in wanting to use it will score it even easier and/or knows more people they can score it from (or make it themselves even).

Slaves were slaves because they had no control over their actions, someone else told them what they could and could not do. Removing someone rights (freedom of speech, right to fair trials, right to own a firearm, the right to not incriminate one self) you are in essence making them slaves.

Laws make us all slaves. You heard it here first everyone. Seatbelts? Slave. Tax codes? Slave. Can't kill people you want to kill? Slave.

No, being a typical liberal you refute logic and common sense.

Post something with it and I'll give it a try. You're like some sort of grand theft auto parody of a person with posts like this.

FW wrote:Slaves were slaves because they had no control over their actions, someone else told them what they could and could not do. Removing someone rights (freedom of speech, right to fair trials, right to own a firearm, the right to not incriminate one self) you are in essence making them slaves.

Wow, you mean that there is no way for us to actually fight an advanced military, armed with the best weapons in this day and age? As in all we should be doing is running around hunting with clubs? Yes, that is what you are saying isn't it. I have a present for you, see the glory that is the TWO-HANDED spiked club.



Sweet.

@ Fateweaver.
I definitly get that outlawing Aks,UZIs and such wouldn't take them out of the hand's of criminals.
By competent & reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms I basicly ment (and I certianly havn't worked all the kinks out of the idea),private citizens don't get AKs (etc) and criminals using them in their activities get to go away til their old and grey,for people who want to blast away with AKs and such for fun perhaps their could be a sanctioned "shooters club",where those wepons are held and one can go and pop off magizine after magizine all day.
I support the second amendment,I own Firearms ( a shotgun and 3 pistols) ,my political view is somewhere in the middle (left on some issues,right on others)...but I know theirs alot of firepower out there (New Orleans was the murder capital of America many years running,and Atlanta isn't much better) and alot of that firepower is in dangerous hands.

FITZZ wrote:
Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.

Not really. There's no contradiction in despising guns, and recognizing their necessity in a nation in which they are easy to access. I could own 12 different firearms and still advocate stricter gun control on the grounds that I feel possessing 12 firearms should be excessive, rather than a perceived necessity.

FITZZ wrote:@ Fateweaver.
I definitly get that outlawing Aks,UZIs and such wouldn't take them out of the hand's of criminals.
By competent & reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms I basicly ment (and I certianly havn't worked all the kinks out of the idea),private citizens don't get AKs (etc) and criminals using them in their activities get to go away til their old and grey,for people who want to blast away with AKs and such for fun perhaps their could be a sanctioned "shooters club",where those wepons are held and one can go and pop off magizine after magizine all day.
I support the second amendment,I own Firearms ( a shotgun and 3 pistols) ,my political view is somewhere in the middle (left on some issues,right on others)...but I know theirs alot of firepower out there (New Orleans was the murder capital of America many years running,and Atlanta isn't much better) and alot of that firepower is in dangerous hands.

Isn't it California that's now coming up with a radical way of regulating heavier firearms by restricting the sales of ammunition and requiring registration, etc just to buy the stuff?

FITZZ wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.

What about political personalities? A senator is only different from a celebrity in so many ways, few of which truly pertain to the need for security.

If they didn't need it they wouldn't have it. Armed 24 hour security doesn't exactly come cheap, and being a politically vocal celebrity isn't the safest thing to be..

I do indeed see your point.

I sort of coverd this before Dogma. but yes,I see your point as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote:@ Fateweaver.
I definitly get that outlawing Aks,UZIs and such wouldn't take them out of the hand's of criminals.
By competent & reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms I basicly ment (and I certianly havn't worked all the kinks out of the idea),private citizens don't get AKs (etc) and criminals using them in their activities get to go away til their old and grey,for people who want to blast away with AKs and such for fun perhaps their could be a sanctioned "shooters club",where those wepons are held and one can go and pop off magizine after magizine all day.
I support the second amendment,I own Firearms ( a shotgun and 3 pistols) ,my political view is somewhere in the middle (left on some issues,right on others)...but I know theirs alot of firepower out there (New Orleans was the murder capital of America many years running,and Atlanta isn't much better) and alot of that firepower is in dangerous hands.

Isn't it California that's now coming up with a radical way of regulating heavier firearms by restricting the sales of ammunition and requiring registration, etc just to buy the stuff?

It's possible I suppose,it seems like the sort of idea that would come out of California government "looks good on paper..ultimatly won't solve much".
Alot of hunting ammo is the same as "assault weapon" ammo so theirs an issue there,also once again theirs the whole "crimanals don't obey laws" issue,so no amount of this type of legislation affects them.

Wrex wrote: A freaking piano is a weapon in the right hands, that is not the point.

Worker in Piano shop answers phone.

Man (On phone):Hello, I'd like to buy your most expensive Piano.

Worker: Im sorry sir, but all expensive piano's have been banned because you can no longer buy assault rifles.

Worker puts down Phone.



I think anything can be deadly weapon in some way.

A Viper isnt designed to be a deadly weapon. But it can kill, that doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to get one. But why should people be able to buy something which is built to kill, when you can buy a pistol, which is better at protecting you and your family. Thought It doesnt look as cool.

What it's built to do is really pretty irrelevant. A sword is built to kill people, while a shotgun is built to hunt. This doesn't make the sword more dangerous when both are used as weapons.

FITZZ wrote:
I sort of coverd this before Dogma. but yes,I see your point as well.

That's what I get for replying before reading the entire thread, my bad.

Fateweaver wrote:Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

In some sense yeah,but he has right to defend himself.

You want a piece of logic to refute.

Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not lower gun crime.

You can't refute it but I can prove it won't as many things that are currently illegal are still obtainable by anyone, good person or bad person.

That statement is logical. I know you will try to refute it, probably even using the lame ass "90% of guns going into mexican drug cartels hands come from the U.S" which is a downright lie but a lot of left wingers believe it.