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.

 sebster wrote:

I think the term you're looking for proportional representation, where you get seats directly allocated based on your overall percentage of the vote.

That's the one, thanks.

 d-usa wrote:
That's the one, thanks.

My pedantry used for good, for once

 sebster wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.

This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.

The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.

That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too.

No, it is seen quite clearly from here - there is no scope at all for this law to follow on and start scooping up all ammo. Now, to clarify, I'm not in favour of targeting this kind of ammo, it is neither a sensible nor useful control on firearms and ammo. But just because it is bad law doesn't mean it's limitless, or the first of many future bad laws. It is, instead, a piece of law that limped in through a largely mythical fear about 'cop killer' bullets, reaching the absolute maximum limits of its effect.

At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.

And now, I hope, you're starting to realise what the real game is here - tell crazy stories and sell, sell, sell.

Anyone can be a revolutionary, even Bill in IT who fixes jammed printers for a living. The point is to act, and others follow suit. Or they don't. Either way, Bill's a revolutionary. If he shoots every weekend that means he's more proficient at operating his firearms than the average citizen.

Additionally, I'm not saying that it's impending doom for gun owners, this ban. Only that there's a lot of fear that is might be because of WHY the ATF is going after M855. I mean, if a standard 5.56 ball round out of an AR pistol can pierce a cop's vest, then the rabbit hole of poor logic follows suit. It might sound insane to you, but this isn't the first nor last time there will be restrictions proposed or imposed upon gun owners. I'd say they have a LEGITIMATE reason to be concerned about this ban. It's probably not going to pass, but it does represent the ever present threat to the 2A. Taking out this source of munitions alone will strain the supply of 5.56 to begin with, I'd hate to see it expanded upon.

Edit: I'd like to see 5.45 7n6 come back onto the market.

Get learned, friend.

 The Airman wrote:
It's probably not going to pass

Well, now I am well and truly confused. I thought we established on the third page that the "no sporting purpose" determination was made way back in 2012, and that it already has passed. Now we're just talking about logistics of removing it from the market - Is that not accurate?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 The Airman wrote:


The point of being irregulars/militia forces is that they are not actual soldiers with training. This can be overcome if a "lion" leads them, someone who has experience and knows what they're doing. There's plenty of these people living in the US. Not sure why we're talking about a revolution, though, or why you think everyone must be strong individuals for it to happen. Sheep follow the shepherd.

Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.

Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.

A man once said you can be sheep, the shepherd, or the wolf.

I say I saw the Wolfman down at Trader Vics, and his hair was perfect. Awoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

 sebster wrote:

But the existence of a chain of command, that organises all participants in to a structure that can operate in militarily effective units is a very big difference.

I might point out that the cell structure, which generally lacks those things, can also be fairly effective.

 sebster wrote:
And amidst the role all that political complexity plays in determining the final outcome of an attempted revolution, it should become clear that a civilian population that shoots guns on the weekend and might fight on your side is really not a factor.

In a insurgency, or revolution, every man who picks up a gun and fights is a factor. Individually, not a big one, perhaps, but he's got a leg up on the guys who sign on that have never seen a gun before.

 sebster wrote:

I've been saying that very thing over and over on this forum for probably around a decade now. But leaping from the recognition of a problem to violent revolution without stopping in between and trying legitimate reform is barking mad.

Do you think that people haven't tried reforms? Campaign finance reform was one step. Man did that die a horrible death. The fact is that the people in the best position to enact reform are also the one's who's jobs hinge on no reform taking place. And they shut it down, faster than you can say 'conflict of interest'.

 sebster wrote:

Getting your hands on guns and learning to be accurate enough, that's the easy bit.

There's a world of difference between the guys that have shot all their lives and the guys who just learn once the shooting has already started.

Maybe it's the fact that I can name years I'd have starved to death in winter if it wasn't for the fact I can shoot, and track through nasty terrain. (Deer are delicious, but like sheep, can wear on you after a month or two of nothing but.)

I've been using firearms since i was six. Most of my neighbors have too. I think that when Frazz and I talk about people who practice on weekends, and you talk about them, we're talking very different things.

I can definitely say the 'problem states' would be New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas. Lots of guns, and large populations who would take a dim view of such changes, and know how to use said guns.

 Frazzled wrote:

I say I saw the Wolfman down at Trader Vics, and his hair was perfect. Awoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

You better stay away from him,
he'll rip your lungs out Jim.
huh, I'd like to meet his tailor....

 Ouze wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
It's probably not going to pass

Well, now I am well and truly confused. I thought we established on the third page that the "no sporting purpose" determination was made way back in 2012, and that it already has passed. Now we're just talking about logistics of removing it from the market - Is that not accurate?

Then it should be reversed because it's solely used for sporting purposes and not for shooting cops. After all, that's literally the ATF's stance on things. I wonder what they'll go for next; the Five-Seven and Tokarev can pose a threat to law enforcement with their capabilities to penetrate protective vests and armor, AKA armor penetration. Those 5.7 needs military rounds to be truly AP, it's still damn good -- a Tokarev cartridge on steroids.

I've heard some rattlings about the EPA going after lead ammo (which is, what, 90% of ammunition on the market?) but I hope it's just typical Elmer Fudd hearsay.

Its not a rumor, they've floated it a few times and it has been shot down in commentary/pressure. The antis view it as a good tactic though.

Lead shot is already banned, at least in California (I can't remember if there's other states or what on that).

 The Airman wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.

This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.

The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.

That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too.

No, it is seen quite clearly from here - there is no scope at all for this law to follow on and start scooping up all ammo. Now, to clarify, I'm not in favour of targeting this kind of ammo, it is neither a sensible nor useful control on firearms and ammo. But just because it is bad law doesn't mean it's limitless, or the first of many future bad laws. It is, instead, a piece of law that limped in through a largely mythical fear about 'cop killer' bullets, reaching the absolute maximum limits of its effect.

At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.

And now, I hope, you're starting to realise what the real game is here - tell crazy stories and sell, sell, sell.

Anyone can be a revolutionary, even Bill in IT who fixes jammed printers for a living. The point is to act, and others follow suit. Or they don't. Either way, Bill's a revolutionary. If he shoots every weekend that means he's more proficient at operating his firearms than the average citizen.

Additionally, I'm not saying that it's impending doom for gun owners, this ban. Only that there's a lot of fear that is might be because of WHY the ATF is going after M855. I mean, if a standard 5.56 ball round out of an AR pistol can pierce a cop's vest, then the rabbit hole of poor logic follows suit. It might sound insane to you, but this isn't the first nor last time there will be restrictions proposed or imposed upon gun owners. I'd say they have a LEGITIMATE reason to be concerned about this ban. It's probably not going to pass, but it does represent the ever present threat to the 2A. Taking out this source of munitions alone will strain the supply of 5.56 to begin with, I'd hate to see it expanded upon.

Edit: I'd like to see 5.45 7n6 come back onto the market.

Get learned, friend.

This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.

Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56? It's a little late for paranoia. This is how politics work now. Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.

You mean other than at least one state already does that right?

Yeah, there are actually people who walk around with tinfoil lining their clothing here. Some even go so far as to line the interior of their houses. All they're doing is giving the zombies a ready-made oven to cook up some brains in.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, there are actually people who walk around with tinfoil lining their clothing here. Some even go so far as to line the interior of their houses. All they're doing is giving the zombies a ready-made oven to cook up some brains in.

Yankees call it the Zombiepocalypse. Texans call it the Zombie Games.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.

I really, really hate this analogy. Sheep flock together for protection like fish move in schools. They have no other defense. When they stand really close together, it makes it hard to single out a particular animal. It's a defense mechanism, not something they do because they're stupid. They are actually fairly smart animals.

Source: Me, I raise sheep.

I've raised sheep too. I know people who've raised sheep.

We unanimously agree that sheep are dumb as rocks.

 streamdragon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.

I really, really hate this analogy. Sheep flock together for protection like fish move in schools. They have no other defense. When they stand really close together, it makes it hard to single out a particular animal. It's a defense mechanism, not something they do because they're stupid. They are actually fairly smart animals.

Source: Me, I raise sheep.

Yes they do and yes it does but that is exactly why many predators work in teams to split a herd and separate weaker elements.

Lions, Wolves, Killer Whales etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.

I really, really hate this analogy. Sheep flock together for protection like fish move in schools. They have no other defense. When they stand really close together, it makes it hard to single out a particular animal. It's a defense mechanism, not something they do because they're stupid. They are actually fairly smart animals.

Source: Me, I raise sheep.

Yes they do and yes it does but that is exactly why many predators work in teams to split a herd and separate weaker elements.

Lions, Wolves, Killer Whales etc.

This analogy doesn't work - wolves don't exist today and if they did - they get wrecked by sheep. This leaves the shepherd feeling quite useless. They will even sometimes invent wolves to scare the sheep. EXACTLY what is happening here.

You must live towards the East of Cali, there's quite a few Wolves in the WEst and Northwest NA.

Grey Templar wrote:I've raised sheep too. I know people who've raised sheep.

We unanimously agree that sheep are dumb as rocks.

Science says your anecdote is worth less than sheep manure.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Yes they do and yes it does but that is exactly why many predators work in teams to split a herd and separate weaker elements.

Lions, Wolves, Killer Whales etc.

I know how pack hunting works. It doesn't change that their flock behavior isn't stupidity; it's defense, and the only one they have.

 Frazzled wrote:
You must live towards the East of Cali, there's quite a few Wolves in the WEst and Northwest NA.

I live in Florida man, Jacksonville. Technically it's the murder capitol of the nation. It's sheep killing sheep though. No wolves required.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56?

Yes.

Are there people that want to ban guns? Sure. Is there some kind of overarching "liberal agenda" in which they are slowly and quietly plotting to take away our guns? No.

It's a little late for paranoia.

See above.

This is how politics work now.

Now? New to politics, are you?

Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.

That is like the third time you've used that patently untrue folk warning. And also stop with the "sheep, shepherds, and wolves" analogies while you're at it. I think you're letting American Sniper go to your head a little too much. The real world isn't as binary as these idiotic adages make them out to be.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56?

Yes.

Are there people that want to ban guns? Sure. Is there some kind of overarching "liberal agenda" in which they are slowly and quietly plotting to take away our guns? No.

It's a little late for paranoia.

See above.

This is how politics work now.

Now? New to politics, are you?

Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.

That is like the third time you've used that patently untrue folk warning. And also stop with the "sheep, shepherds, and wolves" analogies while you're at it. I think you're letting American Sniper go to your head a little too much. The real world isn't as binary as these idiotic adages make them out to be.

There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.

I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You must live towards the East of Cali, there's quite a few Wolves in the WEst and Northwest NA.

I live in Florida man, Jacksonville. Technically it's the murder capitol of the nation. It's sheep killing sheep though. No wolves required.

Ok gotcha. Out west wolves have been reintroduced to many federal lands.
The only thing I know about sheep is they stink.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.

I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.

Not as hilarious as your paranoia.

I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.

I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.

Not as hilarious as your paranoia.

I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.

Okay, so you don't think political parties have agendas? Then you claim to be rational? Having a hard time understanding this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You must live towards the East of Cali, there's quite a few Wolves in the WEst and Northwest NA.

I live in Florida man, Jacksonville. Technically it's the murder capitol of the nation. It's sheep killing sheep though. No wolves required.

Ok gotcha. Out west wolves have been reintroduced to many federal lands.
The only thing I know about sheep is they stink.

You are talking about the mexican wolf. I am actually a member of the mexican wolf conservation group on facebook. I love animals especially wolves, I own a wolf hybird lol.

Lol, just type:

"ban all guns"

....into Google and you'll find lots of groups with a very directly stated Liberal Agenda to ban and confiscate all guns.

And some even directly state that an avenue to doing such is to start with banning bullets.

I would list links but there are so many that just Googling the above should suffice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.

I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.

Not as hilarious as your paranoia.

I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.

Okay, so you don't think political parties have agendas? Then you claim to be rational? Having a hard time understanding this.

That's not what he said, and you know it, too.

The only real agenda any political group has is the perpetuation of their own power, influence, and wealth. Once you learn that basic rule, you'll start to see through all the razzle dazzle of the political circus.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.

I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.

Not as hilarious as your paranoia.

I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.

Whats the weather like in Duh Nile? Things still rosy there?

Its kind of brown, and the lizards grow really big and mean there like 14 foot long big.