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.

hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.

You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.

Could he have used his AK47 if they entered his home?

So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

Medium of Death wrote:Could he have used his AK47 if they entered his home?

yes indeedy. This one's tricky to me though. if I have the local chapter of the crips outside I might open up, as they might open up outside too. I'm not necessarily going to wait for them to storm the place.

hotsauceman1 wrote:The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.

Exactly. I eagerly await the 28th Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. Until then, however, we're stuck with the current one.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, it says right to bear arms, it doesnt say assault rifles.

What's wrong with assault rifles? Specifically, which parts or functions of an AK-47 make it "overkill"?

Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.

If only we had rubber nuclear weapons!

Classic case of "I can't explain why it is wrong, but I know it when I see it"?

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.

A shotgun is much more lethal. I'd rather a nice Mossberg in my hands then an AK if defending the house.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.

You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.

The constitution contains mechanisms for it to be changed by constitutional means, and it has been amended a number of times.

That's a different argument to whether guns are a good thing or not.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

Frazzled, argue in good faith?

My word.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.

You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.

The constitution contains mechanisms for it to be changed by constitutional means, and it has been amended a number of times.

That's a different argument to whether guns are a good thing or not.

And unless you use those means (as Biccat noted) the Constitution is NOT malleable. Thats the point of the Constitution.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

yea actually he did.

Melissia wrote:

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”

I think that's a fairly good argument myself.

But Mel, what about the Mole people?

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”

I think that's a fairly good argument myself.

But Mel, what about the Mole people?

the Mole People. Surface for the Surface Dwellers!

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

yea actually he did.

What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

yea actually he did.

What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...

Any change to the Bill of Rights - which is what he was referring to- is a lessening of our liberties. So, yea actually he was.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

yea actually he did.

What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...

Any change to the Bill of Rights - which is what he was referring to- is a lessening of our liberties. So, yea actually he was.

Fair enough-lets get him before he convinces other to join his cause.

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?

That's not what he said...

yea actually he did.

What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...

Any change to the Bill of Rights - which is what he was referring to- is a lessening of our liberties. So, yea actually he was.

Fair enough-lets get him before he convinces other to join his cause.

Thanks God we won't have to worry about him having guns. That way else can just walking and search through his gak for incriminating evidence or make stuff up since we don't have to have a trial. That's if we don't just throw him in a dungeon. While he's out though my army buddies and I can live in his house, I hope he kept it tidy.

Who the heck keeps an Kalishnikov for Self-Defense? I mean, whatever! Props to the guy for actually being prepared and not killing anyone, but an AK is excessive :3

Samus_aran115 wrote:Who the heck keeps an AK for Self-Defense? I mean, whatever! Props to the guy for actually being prepared and not killing anyone, but an AK is excessive :3

I have an M1. Whats the difference? Oh yea, mine's American. HURR!

Slightly OT, but why would this guy have an AK47 or AK74, given that it is a non-US weapon, and given the cold war history and the whole McCarthy thing. The guy is a red! and if Frazz defends him, that confirms what I've been saying for months - Frazz is a red!!!

Because they are cheap and so is ammo. Also because people who are not generally "gun people" but would like to be, start at cheap surplus.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Slightly OT, but why would this guy have an AK47 or AK74, given that it is a non-US weapon, and given the cold war history and the whole McCarthy thing. The guy is a red! and if Frazz defends him, that confirms what I've been saying for months - Frazz is a red!!!

Well I am from a Red state. Just call me Comrade Frazzled

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Slightly OT, but why would this guy have an AK47 or AK74, given that it is a non-US weapon, and given the cold war history and the whole McCarthy thing. The guy is a red! and if Frazz defends him, that confirms what I've been saying for months - Frazz is a red!!!

There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Kalishnikovs in the US. Being a Russian gun has nothing to do with if people use it. It's a foolproof rifle that has cheapish ammunition, and an abundance of spare parts. Same with Mosin Nagants.

I see what you're saying frazz, but I don't know... Even an M1 seems excessive. 7.62 isn't a wounding round. It's built to kill. 5.56 LR is plenty to disable an intruder to the point that they aren't going to cause you anymore trouble.

Frazzled wrote:

Look folks, People who successfully instiuted gun control (except Marx).

Auston, I know they're cheap in Afghanistan, the blood of a goat will get you an AK47 and fifty rounds, but St Elmo's beard, this is America! America I tells ya!
Plenty of worthy american alternatives: Colt Python, Lee enfield, Bren gun, SA80, L1A1, Sten, Mauser 40/42 etc etc

Samus_aran115 wrote:
I see what you're saying frazz, but I don't know... Even an M1 seems excessive. 7.62 isn't a wounding round. It's built to kill. 5.56 LR is plenty to disable an intruder to the point that they aren't going to cause you anymore trouble.

We were good until you said that. There is no such thing as a "wounding" round. A .223 certainly isn't one. The guy who taught me to shoot rifle had 23 permanent "woundings" I guess.
.22LR can kill you. People don't normally use .22LRs outside of the Mob (and zombie killing of course hurray!) because there are more powerful rounds and a .22LR is designed for smaller game.

hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?

The US constitution is designs how our government is setup, it dictates how elections are held, how the highest levels of government are setup. So yeah it's kinda important. Not to forget .all the other old amendments such as the Freedom of speech/Religion, Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, State's rights, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Auston, I know they're cheap in Afghanistan, the blood of a goat will get you an AK47 and fifty rounds, but St Elmo's beard, this is America! America I tells ya!
Plenty of worthy american alternatives: Colt Python, Lee enfield, Bren gun, SA80, L1A1, Sten, Mauser 40/42 etc etc

SA80s aren't imported to the US, so we don't have any.
A full auto sten is upwards of $5,000 minimum, not including all of the legal fees.

Over here you can get an AK from $300( A crappy Century arms import) to upwards of $1,000 (An AK from Russia's Izmash factory)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.

You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.

I lived in Nassau county for over 17 years. It isn't worth getting a hand gun in the county. Because you have to apply up for a permit to be allowed touch a handgun in that count. Not own, touch. It takes at least 2 years to get said permit, and that's if you are lucky.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.

This is exactly why "assault rifles" are legal. Even professional lawmakers cannot sufficiently define what makes an Mak-90 (semi-automatic version of an AK-47) different than, say, your standard Remington Model 750 (Semi-auto hunting rifle). The clinton administration tried with the Brady bill, but all that did was increase the market of pre-ban weapons and aftermarket parts sales. The fact of the matter is that a MAK-90 (or AR15 etc) is no more or less lethal than a hunting rifle by itself. It is the user and the user's intent that makes a firearm deadly.