Assualt weapons

[_maklelan]

"There's not a lot of aiming going on when shooting into large crowds. That's kinda the purpose."

The Geneva Convention has it that only FMJ (full metal jacket) bullets are used in war. This goes hand in hand with the modern use of small caliber weapons. The whole idea is to wound, not kill. The old it takes two to remove the one wounded, and of course the humanity of it all.

Take away the ar/ak bullet sprayers, and I'm left to use weapons that were actually made to kill, not wound.

But you wouldn't have much access to those, either.

[_AZCaesar]

Right now I could go online and buy handguns and rifles without so much as an ID. That's absolute madness.

This is just totally wrong. If you buy a gun online, it has to ship to an FFl, when you go to pick it up you have to pass the same background check as you would in a store.

[_maklelan]

Oh no. No, mak.

Play with a proxy dick? Tell that to the US military. Tell that to the cops. Tell that to security guards.

Yeah, I know plenty of each, and I promise you they love to think of their guns as reifications of their manliness and aggression. Those are jobs where guns are (usually) required, so that's quite a different story from private ownership.

I live with members of the NRA who are retired and/or ex-military and who are expert marksmen. I have a shooting range on my property. I live out in the sticks where police response is slow enough to get me killed. If someone threatens my family, you can bet your intellectual ass that I want them playing with their proxy dicks to defend me.

So why would you want someone without that training and experience and level-headedness to be able to easily access the kinds of guns that could still end up killing people in your household? Why not prevent them from being able to threaten your family?

Additionally, you might not have noticed that there are women on this forum who own guns, know how to shoot and are hobbyists who hold the same or similar level of interest as rockslider as a hobbyist.

And they wouldn't be doing that if men hadn't constructed and nurtured our gun culture, which is absolutely about masculinity.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bushmas ... z3MdpK6zD4

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-ho ... ca-2012-12

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ly-virtues

Are they playing with their proxy dicks, too?

In many ways, yes.

Get the rabid and juvenile sexism out of your posts.

Sexism? Not a word of what I've said has anything whatsoever to do with sexism.

[_maklelan]

This is just totally wrong. If you buy a gun online, it has to ship to an FFl, when you go to pick it up you have to pass the same background check as you would in a store.

Nope. It can ship directly to you. The sale just has to be categorized as private and ship inside the state. Even then, plenty of places online just ignore that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

[_The CCC]

Right now I could go online and buy handguns and rifles without so much as an ID. That's absolute madness.

This is just totally wrong. If you buy a gun online, it has to ship to an FFl, when you go to pick it up you have to pass the same background check as you would in a store.

SEE http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-o ... e-anything

[_Themis]

I'm not certain, but I assume France has very strict gun laws. Did that prevent disaster? Do they feel any safer today with those laws?

Yes. Gun laws mostly will make a difference. No one thinks they will stop all disasters. They do have a real reduction in harm in a society. I will add again this is not an argument for total ban on guns.

On a larger scale Afghanistan resisted Russian attack Helicopters and their army for years, and how many of your children have been, are, or soon will be, again going like my son? Guess what, they are poor bastards who with no money and guerrilla warfare tactics have keep the largest forces in the world at a standstill.

The USSR was winning quite well until the US started to smuggle in weaponry to take out their heavy weaponry.

[_Themis]

Given the US constitutional amendment, any weapon of any sort should be permissible for a citizen to possess.

Really? I have read the second amendment and it didn't say this. A nuke is a weapon. Should a US citizen, able to afford one, have the right to possess one?

[_maklelan]

Given the US constitutional amendment, any weapon of any sort should be permissible for a citizen to possess.

Really? I have read the second amendment and it didn't say this. A nuke is a weapon. Should a US citizen, able to afford one, have the right to possess one?

I'd add that the Second Amendment originally referred entirely and exclusively to the right of states to organize militias. It actually wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court capitulated to the NRA and the gun culture changed the interpretation to refer to individual rights. For a good discussion of why it originally referred only to state-controlled militias, see here:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people ... s/guns.pdf

The Supreme Court decision is here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[_The CCC]

Given the US constitutional amendment, any weapon of any sort should be permissible for a citizen to possess.

Really? I have read the second amendment and it didn't say this. A nuke is a weapon. Should a US citizen, able to afford one, have the right to possess one?

One can certainly kill a fly with a hand grenade, but the collateral damage is painful to one using it.

[Guest]

Mak

"It needs to be far more than just a ban on assault rifles, but it needs to include that ban. Really the gun culture as a whole needs to go, because that's going to be the biggest ideological mitigator of the chance of legislation going through and its effectiveness once it does go through."

"If strong gun control is federally administered we can significantly reduce that trafficking."

I do believe that Mak is correct that only a total ban of all guns/ammo at high levels could/would produce the desired results of removing guns from the hands of all citizens, thus dropping the margin of gun related deaths to near zero. As I believe he has also referred to, the problem expands past US territories and and even Federal Control.

I assume Mak is too young to remember much about the whole "New World Order" movement years back. Headed by non-other than the Father of the Internet (hehe).

Earth in the Balance

funny, 1 penny is today's worth.

He is also too young to likely remember the era/likes of ETB's
An Enemy hath done this

i.e. United Nations (one world control) is/was the enemy.

There are many things where humans threaten our own existence on this planet. Several of them highlighted in Gore's book. With terrifying, to me, proposed solutions.

As educated people like Mak know much better than I the long heated history of even State's rights verses Federal rights. Let-a-lone US Federal rights in International Rights.

People .... when I say .... don't give up freedoms for a false sense of security, it actually has very little to do with guns, US mass shootings etc. It has to deal with an ever widening circle of safety ... city, to state, to fed, to the world. Ever time we relinquish ANY freedom/right, leaving the power/choices in the hands of a higher, more central authority, we lose ground.

So when Mak suggests that I have no morals to suggest that a legacy of individual Freedoms passed on to my posterity is far more important to the big picture than giving up my proxy dicks, he seems to have no understanding of people giving up their own lives to protect the very concept of Freedom.

I assume Mak would be an ardent supporter of Gore's proposed solutions to not just this gun issue, but several others.

Hey, it's only 0.1 cents Mak ... check it out, you will love this book.