Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/18/09 03:03 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/18/09 02:17 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: Based on half of your responses to this thread I'm not sure that more than half of you understood what the assault weapons ban was actually for.

And based on your statement, you missed the fact that we're not discussing the assault rifle ban, just the politics behind restricting certain types of weaponry.

Reading Achilles2's post about the assault weapon ban got me thinking about "assault weapon" in terms of the assault weapon ban. My mistake. I just read a few posts about the minigun (GrammerNaziElite's post) which obviously goes above and beyond the term "assault weapon", and posts about pistols in general (RussianGiant's post). Other too, but since we're not talking about that there's really no point for me to talk about it anymore.

As for my input, I beleive the current weapon restrictions are fine.

Also, quoting the article that Achilles2's posted
"Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore,
Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage)"

Personally I would want to take a more diverse and larger sample if I was going to make a claim like that.

Plus,
"A compilation of 38 sources indicated that AWs accounted for 2% of crime guns on average".

Wow, a whole 2%. So even if you do believe that 6 cities is enough to get an accurate measure of how much AW crime dropped, you lowered the gun crime rate by a whopping .34% to 1.44%, which is not very impressive.

My thoughts for now.

Based on half of your responses to this thread I'm not sure that more than half of you understood what the assault weapons ban was actually for.

Article is vague. Need more details to come to a conclusion.

People have been suggesting this for like thirty years now (literally).

I think we were just worried about china getting involved so we didn't push all the way to the border. Then they got involved anyway.

Not as much about how much money as that he pretended to rob someone at gunpoint. Which is where the first degree robbery comes from. 15 years for pleading guilty is a bit much though unless he asked for it or was acting like a douche to the judge to get more time or something.

You have a skill then you have your advisers fill in the stuff you don't have. Lawyers generally work on their speaking and persuasion skills more than engineers do, which is why I would assume that it's easier for them to be elected into office.

At 1/28/09 11:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Doesn't to me (except maybe the Nutrition Programs. Fuck that, parents should be handling that) but the rest of it looks like programs we actually need in an economy where people are losing jobs left and right.

There's $345 million for Agriculture Department computers, $650 million for TV converter boxes, $15 billion for college scholarships. There's $1 billion to deal with Census problems and $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year. The Senate would devote $2.1 billion to pay off a looming shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia. There's also $380 million in the Senate bill for a rainy day fund for the Women, Infants and Children program that delivers healthful food to the poor. WIC got the equivalent of a $1 billion infusion last fall.

For example, just one-third of $30 billion proposed by the House for highway construction would reach the economy in the next year and a half, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Full article

After the assault rifle ban lapsed I was able to LEGALLY get an AR_15
this only cost me $50 for the gun and $50 for 10 clips

!!!!!!!!!!
$50!?!?

Gun control doesn't work. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably has not done any research on the subject.

When I say gun control I mean anything beyond a bit less than what the current laws are in the US. Fully automatic weapons are not good target weapons, and are not sporting, and while people my disagree with me I believe that a good sized pistol (>9mm) or shotgun would do just fine against anything short of an invasion for home defense. Restrictions against felons is fine, they had their chance, and repeat offenders are common. The assault weapons ban (assault =/= automatic) was pretty worthless. Restrictions at colleges are probably legitimate, even though it's a major pain in the ass for me. Restrictions at lower schools are fine too, most of the kids there aren't even old enough to posses firearms yet anyway, and I think it's alright to pick your kid up as long as you don't stay there/park with a firearm in the car (though the police would probably shit bricks anyway).

I'm talking about federal restrictions of course, there are plenty of ridiculous restrictions in certain states, but based on what I've said you can probably figure out what I would agree with.

You think it's possible for them to have vaguer questions? Not sure how much I trust this compass.

At 1/18/09 01:20 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Has anyone considered for a moment that Obama might not be the only reason for the increase in gun sales? Go over to any economics blog that believes the government's economic action are going to work, and you'll see a lot of people stock piling weapons to defend themselves in case of another Great Depression.

I'd say the new democratic president paired with democratic legislature is the main reason, thought there may be a bit of what you are saying.

What the hell was that? Did someone just break my window? *Grabs compound bow*

Heh..

At 1/18/09 12:26 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 1/18/09 12:02 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/17/09 11:27 PM, GarvielLoken wrote: Let me ask you this. A guy breaks into your house. You don't have a gun. How are you going to shoot him?

Right, because guns are the only possible form of self-defense.

Ever tried fighting a mugger without a weapon or formal martial training? It's not easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2REG3-Wb5 gM

King of the hill?

At 1/17/09 07:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 1/17/09 05:09 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote:

I don't think that's exactly how it works. People looting and shooting at national guardsmen because martial law was declared doesn't really fall under the "right to take out the government" part of the constution,

Well then please enlighten me, because I'd certainly like to know.

Well when you're shooting at national guardsmen who are trying to evacuate citizens, you're committing a legitimate crime. Now that of course is an opinion, but I feel as if most people would agree that laws against murder are pretty legitimate.

If the government were to start rounding up people and killing them for no good reason, that would be a situation where most people would probably agree that trying to take down the government would be acceptable.

That's the way I see it at least, I don't know, does everyone else think that blowing away national guardsmen during evacuations during Katrina included in the "right to take down the government?"

THAT is the purpose of the right to bear arms our country has. In case martial law is ever declared ( AND IT IS, HAS BEEN, AND WILL BE IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE US. Katrina? HELLO????) you have the RIGHT to OPPOSE your government WITH VIOLENT DEADLY MILITARY FORCE. In forfeit of your own life, of course, but then again, you better be DAMN sure you're doing the right thing before you raise arms against your fatherland anyways. Anyone who would do such a thing lightly deserves the violent death they will be handed.

I don't think that's exactly how it works. People looting and shooting at national guardsmen because martial law was declared doesn't really fall under the "right to take out the government" part of the constution,

yeah I see gun control around #29 or #34. how about you?

I see it whenever some senator or representative decides that they feel like adding gun control legislation. It might not be high on Obama's priority list, but the senate and the house pass bills all the time that aren't that important, and people are worried he'd sign it into law.
Like I said though, it's not really necessary to go out and grab as many as you can right now, you should have plenty of time if that's what you're trying to do.

::You don't need...
:thank god rights aren't based on needs.
This.
Would be a sad day when you see people reloading .22 lr.
... just thinking about seeing someone do that makes me laugh.

After reading your thread again, I see that the gun salesman stuff has nothing to do with your thread. Sorry for hijacking it and turning it into a discussion instead of whatever the hell it was before.

I saw some news about how alot of republicans were leaving for the inauguration because they didn't want to be there with a million drunken Obama supporters celebrating his inauguration (it didn't actually say "million drunken Obama supporters celebrating his inauguration" of course but that's basically what I got from it). I'd assume that there was concern about people partying too hard and breaking shit and people are bound to get hurt, I mean when he got elected there were people out in the streets yelling and throwing stuff (a "happy riot" my sister called the occurrence at her university). Other than that though, I really haven't seen much about it.

Being handcuffed is not a punishment. Handcuffs are to protect the officers and people around the person under arrest. There should be no exceptions.

Just because someone is autistic doesn't mean they'll play ball. I don't see why you would think otherwise.

trying to raise awareness to people's fears of loosing their guns?

I wouldn't be surprised if the fear was legitimate (not for all guns of course, just the "evil black ones") , though congress would have to start working on the legislature, which would give you plenty of time to go out and get whatever you were thinking about. I haven't heard anything about a bill coming anywhere floor action yet.

I suppose if you lived in a state with a waiting period or lengthy background check it could be a problem, but still, you should have plenty of time.

I personally think that's pretty silly to write a speech in letter form and pretend that it's for your kids. Apparently some people thought it was good though.

Yeah I know right? Runoff elections never happen, the vote is always so lopsided that there was never even any point to voting. Oh wait, runoff elections happen quite frequently on local elections and occasionally in national elections.

You guy can not vote if you want to, just more power to me.

Do you people seriously not see a connection between gun sales and Obama being inaugurated as president? It's pretty clear to me that people want to get firearms that they've been wanting in case a democratic congress passes more gun control legislature and Obama signs it in. I mean some state legislatures already passing bills requiring serial numbers to be printed on every bullet projectile and a 5 cent sales tax on every bullet (.22 lr expensive? Ahhhh! Hell has frozen over!). While this might have been a neat idea, I don't really think police could get a serial number off of a bullet projectile once it's been fired (If you've seen a fired projectile you probably know what I'm talking about). They couldn't even get clear fingerprints off a glass door at the office after the burgular took out the glass panel.

Also, I want an "assault rifle" because they're fun to shoot. Shooting my mini-14 is pretty fun. They're not target rifles or anyhting but there's just something fun about seeing how fast you can shoot and still be accurate. Once you get good enough though the range rules will probably restrict you from firing too quickly. It's a different kind of challenge than lighting a match at 300 yards with a target rifle.

If I were to use a gun for home defense it would probably be a shotgun or a pistol. 12 Guage or a larger pistol round ( >9 mm) has more stopping power than the .223 and while I guess you could unload your clip into the intruder I don't really think it's necessary when a smaller weapon can do the trick. Nearly all gun crimes are committed with firearms other than assault rifles, so banning them won't really do much. The last assault weapons ban did real good to reduce crime rite? har har sarcasm.

Me:
- It's fun when people get worked up over the newgrounds politics forum
- Angry people say silly things

I know we're not even anywhere close to Italy.

lol africa

I'm thinking about buying an ar-15, what do you think? I shot one last month and it was pretty nice, but the spring in the stock felt kind of strange compared to a regular gun.

At 11/20/08 12:40 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: Why are you worried of an EMP attack?

But doesnt an EMP just temporarially shut down all power?

Go look up things like electromagnetic induction. EMF (and therefore current) is created by change in magnetic flux through conductors, so if you have a large enough magnetic field you can fry your electronics past the point of recovery.