Buy a truck, get a gun

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.

**Wrexasaur**

Hordini wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:
Whether or not people need the weapons they possess is a moot point. The constitution says they can have them. It's a matter of principle.

Doesn't the constitution say that in terms of the 18th century, when we had just got out of a war with England??? I think the constitution argument is a moot point as well.

Yeah, but except for the later amendments, the constitution says everything in terms of the 18th century. This is a really good point though! The second amendment is silly and outdated! The founding fathers only wanted citizens to have muzzle-loading weapons. Personally I think things like freedom of speech and religion are outdated too. Everyone knows how dangerous and disruptive things like religion and free speech are, I mean look at all the wars that have been fought over religion, for instance the Crusades! Freedom of the press could really be done away with too, that sort of thing is too divisive in our glorious nation. Look at the kind of damage that was caused to our reputation when the Abu Graib story broke! Everyone would have been much happier if no one ever heard that story! The founding fathers never intended our press to be carrying around things like cameras and microphones, so people could actually watch and hear what people were doing in far off places! They couldn't even imagine that sort of technology! I mean, our government is here to serve the people, how can they do that efficiently if we have all these frivolous, outdated liberties?

Because grand sweeping generalizations that do not directly address the statement will help all of this go extremely smoothly.

Muzzle Loading guns are no more dangerous than any standard fire-arm available for sale in your average gun store today right?

GRAND SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS. Keep them coming.

Lets just argue and twist everything others say so this conversation can have absolutely no grounding anywhere besides jokes and personal vendettas.

**Hordini**

To be fair, you did claim the constitution argument was a moot point. I was just taking the idea a little further.

**Wrexasaur**

I could go further and say that I need a nuclear missile and it is simply none of your business, but I did not.

"Note"
This is a pretty funny sentence.

**Hordini**

The founding fathers couldn't even imagine nuclear weapons. You only get muzzle-loaders, sorry.

But seriously, I'm cool with freedom of the press, but I think all the cameras and microphones are a bit excessive.

**Wrexasaur**

Okay, I misinterpreted what you were saying then. Perhaps you were making funny.

It is true that the constitution is simply outdated, not by the general meaning, but the intention.

If I went back in time with the weapons we have now there is not end to the Havoc I could cause, talking about a one man army in the past.

The cell-phones are great, seriously though. If you do something stupid, someone can take a video and the whole world will know in a matter of hours. GOOD! Stop being stupid!

This applies mainly to people in government affiliated jobs, specifically police. There was a man that was shot in the Bay area on New Years, he was caught on film begging for his life. If that isn't serious news that I NEED to hear, nothing is. The police officer executed him, plain and simple, the main reason being there was just too much evidence to prove otherwise.

Police brutality... Fight back with words, microphones, and cameras, and if that fails THEN fight with fists, because the Police are there to protect us, and if they don't THEY NEED TO GO!!!

"Note"

Free speech is a tricky issue, but it is the one and only right that is TRUE BLUE AMERICAN. The relevance of compromise is in free speech, and I can simply ignore morons if I need to.

**Orkeosaurus**

The second amendment is as much a part of the U.S. constitution as the first amendment, the 14th amendment, or the sections governing elections.

Whether you think it's outdated or not, it's what the law is until the constitution itself is changed.

**drakedeming**

Envy89 wrote:
drakedeming wrote:Under the old law they are all assault weapons.

cept for #1 and #4... under the old law #2 and 3 would be.

#2 has a kit that magicaly turns it into an "Evil" weapon useing pixy dust and candy rainbows.
#4 looks like only bad men use it, as such the pixy dust need not be used on it.

drakedeming wrote:Currently there is no real definition of an assault weapon though since there is no law.

the key is full auto.

but to play it safe i am picking up odds and ends that i know will be banned if the nut jobs have their way with the constution.... things like folding stocks, standard cap mags (mostly 30 rounders), ptisol grips, spikey bits, ect, ect.... o, and i am keeping my eye on a 75 round drumb for my ak.... be able to shoot all day with that.

stuff i can pick up now for 20$ a pop, then if or when a ban comes back in place i could sell for much more then that

Under the old rules #1 is still an AK and thus still banned under the old rules
Under the old rules #4 has a pistol grip and a flash suppressor and that might be a telescoping stock? under the old rules it still fails.

The old rules are not around.

**oggers**

So your answer to gun crime is more guns? Explain logic plez.

**reds8n**

..hmm... this bodes well.

**Frazzled**

I'm trying to understand why would I want to buy a truck? Thats like 20 guns I could get instead...

**reds8n**

I guess if you had a lot of guns you could carry them round in it ?

You know, like a slightly more militant version of the Scooby gang.

Fred always had a Young Republican look to him to me, I could never quite figure out why he was hanging out with Shaggy. WTF was that all about eh ? But did Bush or Obama answer that ? Did they feth!

**Frazzled**

Come on the Mystery Mobile was fully decked out for pyschedelic shenanigans.

Fred was there because Daphne was there. Aman's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

**reds8n**

Men will do things for love* but a cravat ? When you have no facial hair ? There's limits.

*well, sex anyway.

**Hordini**

oggers wrote:So your answer to gun crime is more guns? Explain logic plez.

The problem isn't really with guns, per se, the problem is criminals with guns. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing it's similar in the UK with knives. The problem isn't the knives, it's criminals stabbing people with knives. The number of legal guns is really neither here nor there.

**Grignard**

Frazzled wrote:Come on the Mystery Mobile was fully decked out for pyschedelic shenanigans.

Fred was there because Daphne was there. Aman's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Fred is gay. You have it backward. Daphne was there because of Fred. He's her gay buddy.

**Frazzled**

You could be right. He was a dweeb anyway.

Does that mean Daphne is available, er wait wha?

**reds8n**

Thelma's the gay one.

**Grignard**

reds8n wrote:Thelma's the gay one.

Yah, true. But come on, what guy wears an Ascot tie. I realize they were kind of a fasion craze at the time, but still.

**reds8n**

Are they still not required dress for the entire Dakka moderation team ?

**Frazzled**

No, we have a specific uniform, but we only wear it for formal occasions. From our last tea and crumpets jam session.

Guess which one is Iorek

**reds8n**

ONLY on formal occasions ?

This is how the fall of Rome began.

..for a moment there I read that as if you'd finally accepted the self evident truth that the delicious fruity goodness is indeed called "jam" and not "jelly" as you heathens persist in mislabeling it.

Guess which one is Iorek

*resists clown shoes joke*

**Frazzled**

Reddy
1. I'm the one on the left. unfortunately I didn't have time to change into my uniform before the pic was taken so just had to take the shot with my normal street clothes.

2. Lets be clear. In the USA jelly and jam are closely related but separate things. most people aren't aware of jams as much (or of the difference) usually you had to have a grandmother who cooked/baked/preserved a lot to know there's a real difference. These people are usually fortunate and have great memories of going to grannie's house for a treat.

**reds8n**

hmm... homemade jam

To be honest with you I doubt m/any people over here would be aware of any difference a twixt the twain. "Jelly" over here is taken to refer to what you would call "jello", and pretty much all spreads are called jams, with the exception of marmalade.

No one knows why citrus fruits have this special status.

**Orkeosaurus**

According to the guy in the PB&J thread, it's because it traditionally has shavings of the peel in it.

**reds8n**

Holy Moly ! I'd missed that entire thread

.

...well, after reading it, perhaps "missed" isn't quite the right word, but what can one do ?

**Lagduf**

Wrexasaur wrote:
Whether or not people need the weapons they possess is a moot point. The constitution says they can have them. It's a matter of principle.

Doesn't the constitution say that in terms of the 18th century, when we had just got out of a war with England??? I think the constitution argument is a moot point as well.

No, the Constitution was a document crafted with the future in mind. Hence the fact that we have the ability to amend the constitution.

It is a legal document meant to stand the test of time and as such it contains a lot things that were just as relevant now as they were during its drafting.

It is my opinion that the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended for the citizenry to be able to defend themselves against the Government, criminals, and other potential life threatening hazards.

The crux of the argument, in my opinion, isn't about whether or not we have a right to defend ourselves (it's clear to me we do) but rather essentially what weapons and actions constitute as reasonable self defense.

It's clearly open for interpretation, and ultimately will be up to the court to decide. It is true that our understanding and interpretation of some of our rights have significantly changed over time. Sedition wasn't considered a violation of 1st amendment rights up until the 20th century.

I am not personally trying to take your guns, so please don't make this a flame war...

I'm not sure why you would even make such a comment then.

**jp400**

drakedeming wrote:
Envy89 wrote:
drakedeming wrote:Under the old law they are all assault weapons.

cept for #1 and #4... under the old law #2 and 3 would be.

#2 has a kit that magicaly turns it into an "Evil" weapon useing pixy dust and candy rainbows.
#4 looks like only bad men use it, as such the pixy dust need not be used on it.

drakedeming wrote:Currently there is no real definition of an assault weapon though since there is no law.

the key is full auto.

but to play it safe i am picking up odds and ends that i know will be banned if the nut jobs have their way with the constution.... things like folding stocks, standard cap mags (mostly 30 rounders), ptisol grips, spikey bits, ect, ect.... o, and i am keeping my eye on a 75 round drumb for my ak.... be able to shoot all day with that.

stuff i can pick up now for 20$ a pop, then if or when a ban comes back in place i could sell for much more then that

Under the old rules #1 is still an AK and thus still banned under the old rules
Under the old rules #4 has a pistol grip and a flash suppressor and that might be a telescoping stock? under the old rules it still fails.

The old rules are not around.

#1 isnt an Ak47 its a SKS....

Thanks for playing.

**Hordini**

If anyone's still unclear on the actual differences between jam and jelly, please see my post in the PB&J thread. I hope that clears everything up (this information has been grandmother-approved - also, most marmalade in the US is sweet, but you can make it with lots of different citrus fruits, with peel - orange, lemon, lime, grapefruit, etc., although orange is probably the most common).