Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/17/12 05:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you guys wouldn't believe all of the petitions on Whitehouse.gov for stronger gun control. link good thing we have a republican congress and the NRA.

I do worry that having had three shootings since June, and the latest one being so emotionally gut-wrenching...Obama will find the political capital to push through something.

---

At 12/17/12 04:34 PM, TheMason wrote: A) Pistols and hunting rifles are far more deadly than assault rifles because of the ammo that is more common for them.

I know, but most people don't know that, and that includes non-career criminals. Ask people on the street, and 100 light criminals (i.e. ones that have not committed a gun crime before, or have done it just a few times) and chances are damn near all of them will say assault rifles are deadlier.

I am not talking about the hardened career criminal here.

B) On the other hand, hunting with AK-47s and SKSs have become increasingly more common

But they are still extremely rare compared to hunting rifles and pistols.

C) I know many, many shooters and collectors. I don't know of anyone who buys a modern firearm to just display. They all fire their weapons. Hell, every 5 years I take my Mitchell Mauser out and put two or three rounds through it and it's a WWII production rifle in basically new condition.

My sentence "collections are for show" meant to say "collection OR for show". My only point with the collection comment was to say that not that many people have collections, whereas a good deal of people have pistols for shooting/self defense and/or hunting rifles.

This is also a fallacy. The FBI and other interested parties have studied felons who were convicted of crimes involving firearms. The vast majority used handguns followed closely by shotguns.

That makes sense. However, I was still referring to the relatively spontaneous gun crimes. This would include heat of the moment shootings as well as hastily planned robberies and such.

And again...this is not Mason making shit up. This is the result of several studies going back to the 1990s. One interesting thing though, in direct contradiction to what you claim, the vast majority of gangbangers chose a handgun or shotgun over an assault rifle...even though they owned one or more assault rifles. For them the assault rifle was just a status symbol...just another piece of bling. Not a tool to actually use in their criminal enterprise.

For a gangmamber I could also see an assault rifle as a method of creating fear and submission. As most people believe an assault rifle is more dangerous than a pistol the brandishing of one, would serve as an effective method of creating compliance among the victims of a crime such as robbery. Then there are those who intend/expect to encounter law enforcement resistance at some point (see the LA bank robbery shootout).

But again, the final point is still the same. Crimes commited with assault rifles as opposed to pistols (and shotguns) are a very small minority.

---

At 12/17/12 05:19 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/17/12 05:18 PM, TheMason wrote: I do worry that having had three shootings since June, and the latest one being so emotionally gut-wrenching...Obama will find the political capital to push through something.

but having the NRA funding and a heavily pro-gun republican congress should deter most attempts.

On a political point of view though, it could really hurt republicans to keep supporting anti-gun legislation at the moment because of these events, not to mention how vulnerable they are to political attacks from Obama (I can already hear someone say: "people are being killed because of Republicans!")

---

20 children was murdered Friday morning at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn, USA when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot two first-grade classrooms that also killed six adults...

As I do think this tragedy was dreadful and horrible for the kid's parents and teachers that where killed. This matter was taken to far for me to fetch. I see this issue of these poor children dying from a psycho becoming a chance for the Second Amendment to be buried away.

My point being that guns here was not the issue for what had happened in Newtown. Yes they where used, but that doesn't mean they should be stripped from all of us. There are enough gun laws now at present day. Taking away guns will not help them poor families or prevent any future school killings. What is done is already in the past. Lanza could of used bombs instead and killed all of the kids in teachers in Sandy Hook. It is not the weapon, but the weapons carrier. I own guns and I don't miss use them. Why take them away from me? My entire family has guns and has no previous history of miss using them. We have guns to hunt with and to protect ourselves if there was ever a home invasion.
Many people and I believe that gun control is pointless. More violence is statically proven to be more in areas where gun control is made stricter. Support Gun Rights and this violence will decrease

---

At 12/17/12 05:18 PM, TheMason wrote: I do worry that having had three shootings since June, and the latest one being so emotionally gut-wrenching...Obama will find the political capital to push through something.

Obama can't even get a budget passed and that's something both sides agree that they should be doing right now.

---

So my friend's boss (he works at a gun store), ordered $5mil in AR-15s because he's heard from connections (in political circles) that Obama is gonna push for an "assault weapons" ban in January.

Obama. Professional job killer

---

At 12/17/12 09:04 PM, Warforger wrote: Obama can't even get a budget passed and that's something both sides agree that they should be doing right now.

He'll just executive order it.

FunFact: Obama has created 3 times more executive orders in his one term than FDR did in 3.

1200...times 3.

Good President.

---

At 12/15/12 07:45 PM, TheMason wrote:

Will have to truncate much of original response for space...

Modern Weapons

1) Part of this is due to technological advancements in the manufacture of both weapons and ammunition.
,
2) First, these types of bullets are still in use today, although admittedly mostly by collectors and people with a strong desire to use muzzleloading weapons. Secondly, the point here we are just getting boiled down in a small irrelevant issue. You can call a bullet whatever you want, and it can be of whatever size, but bullets and guns have one sole purpose: destruction of a target. When you put those guns and ammunitions in the hands of people predisposed to inflict pain and suffering on other people, bad things tend to happen.

3) You completely misunderstand that argument that I am making here. With muzzleloaders from the colonial era, once you fired a single shot, you had to stop and reload the weapon EVERY time you wanted to fire again. With modern weapons, all you need to do is release the trigger and shoot again. I was not referring to automatic weapons as you seem to think, I was referring to weapons that have multiple rounds in the clip, making the effective rate of fire faster since you don't need to reload as often, AND the reloading process is often much faster (switching a clip vs. having to load a round properly in the muzzle).

4) What are you talking about when you say when "for every person who dies from a GSW two more are wounded making the survival rate 67% not 94%"? This just makes no sense.

For every 1 person who dies from a GSW, 2 more are injured, thus... 1/3 of dies... survival rate 67%, not 94.

Hague Convention
However, you conflate things like chemical weapons into small arms.

The only thing I said about chemical weapons was that their efforts to control them were unsuccessful as we saw in World War I. How is that conflating CWA into small arms?

While yes I did say military weapons when speaking of the devolution of lethality, my next words made it clear that I was refering to small arms (rifles, pistols and shotguns) in terms of what specific weapons could not make death inevitable.

No, your words were "military small arms" so let's make that distinction clear. Secondly, military weapons (large or small arms) are used for often a completely different purpose than weapons owned by the civilian population for private use and are not subject to the same sets of rules and laws. And again, you drop my argument about the idea of "death not being inevitable" completely.

the restriction on small arms ammo did take effect and has had a lasting impact on the type of projectile fired from small arms.

Be that as it may, guns are still the most deadly form of weapon available today.

The result is the Full Metal Jacket round that is the least lethal type of bullet out there. It is so NOT lethal that its use in hunting is prohibited...and therefore unethical for shooting.

Oh, so it's unethical to shoot animals with it, but its okay if we want to shoot people with it?

Pimps & Hoes

2 of the 3 specific items you mention support my argument, not yours. And I can't find any statistics proving your argument or mine, but I still question the validity of your argument - while the potential is there for it to be true, I have a hard time believing that pimps make it a method of first resort to shoot their hookers at the drop of a hat.

Also, your source does not really paint much of a picture. Of the women killed by someone they knew, what percentage was by a consentual intimate partner (past or present) or a predator?

What percentage were killed by pimps? I would argue my argument is not only more likely, but it generally trumps yours completely. All you are doing is trying to deny the existence of statistics by floating hypothetical arguments that may or may not have a basis in reality.

Black Market

1) A) if the USFG is a participant rather than a supplier that means US guns are not fueling the sales of black market weapons, it means the USFG is increasing demand for black market weapons.
B) you have no causal proof that ANY of those weapons have returned to the US and have been used in the perpetration of a crime.

Your point about serial numbers is irrelevent.

Care to explain how? The US is one of the few countries involved in the black market trade of weapons that requires serial number engraving. Most weapons found on the black market feature no such markings, meaning that these weapons are acquired from other countries, not the US.

2) Many US military arms make their way into the black market

Again, you fail to show causal proof that these weapons return to the US and are used in the commission of violent crime domestically.

3) Still prohibitively expensive for the crack dealer down the street or the guy on the corner slinging meth to acquire. These people turn to dealing drugs in many cases either to support their own habits or support a family. In either case, they don't have the required funds to take a trip to Africa or Pakistan, trade 2 chickens for an AK, get the gun past Customs enforcement and bring it back into their neighborhoods. That's one good thing that the GCA Act of 68 does, even though it doesn't ban the domestic manufacture and sale of these weapons, just the importation of them (making that bill in many cases more about economic protectionism than an attempt to reduce gun violence).

The Past 15 Years

What is being sensationalized? This year alone we have had at least 5 mass shootings that I can name off the top of my head, and probably many others. Not to mention 30 people on average are killed every day in gun-related violence. This is a trend that must be stopped.

1) Certain CWAs are incredibly easy to make.

Give me an instance where a meth manufacturer used their chemical knowledge to purposely inflict mass violence. Outside of McVeigh, it rarely happens. And how did we get to talking about chemical weapons, anyway? Nice attempt to change the subject.

2) Not all precursors are tightly controlled.

See my prior argument about the lack of availability of funds. Spending 300$ on chemical agents when you can't afford food or shelter is a non sequitor.

Your Argument vs. Mine

I will freely admit that I do not have the technical knowledge - I purposely choose not to. I would qualify in the group of people denied gun registration under the federal register because of mental health issues (even though I am not actually required to be registered on that list, which is a problem that needs to be solved). Nevertheless, I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge of firearms to say that "these problems must end, and we must change... Surely, we can do better than this."

On the other hand...

There is an argument to be made for psychological reactions to these events. How many times do you want to have to explain to your children who watch the news that there are bad people in the world who will do bad things? More importantly, how many times can parents have that conversation with their children before the effects become cumulative? We have a sickening amount of experience in this country when it comes to mass shootings, and that in and of itself is an indictment of this country. Something is wrong, and needs to be changed.

You also completely fail to address some of the key parts of my argument which I named as I went through your response. Regardless, there are cases of weapons that are currently legally available in this country that we need to have a national discussion about. More importantly, we have to find some way to prevent weapons that are both legal and legally acquired from falling into the hands of people like Ryan/Adam Lanza (I forget which one was the shooter). I mentioned a couple of ideas myself in this post, but if you are the smarty-pants of guns, what is your solution to this problem? Do you have one? Or are you no better than the Westboro Baptist Church who vowed to protest the Newtown funerals because they exult the glory of God in executing his judgment.

---

At 12/16/12 09:18 PM, Revo357912 wrote: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Canada/United-States/Cri me

I'm sorry but "Drug offences 92,590 per 100,000 people" for Canada. So 9/10 people roughly have drug offenses against them in my country? That is in no way remotely correct. I wouldn't trust that site one way or another with a blatantly false stat like that. I would doubt if it even reached a thousand.

---

At 12/18/12 01:14 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

Modern Weapons

2) ... Secondly, the point here we are just getting boiled down in a small irrelevant issue. You can call a bullet whatever you want, and it can be of whatever size, but bullets and guns have one sole purpose: destruction of a target. ...

In no way is the bullet's capacity to do harm and/or kill a "small irrelevant issue". Even with this tragedy, guns will not totally be outlawed. The refrain from pro-gun control advocates is: I'm not after hanguns for self-defense or hunting rifles...but why does someone need something as powerful as an AK-47? Ergo, the upcoming debate will center around the lethality of bullets.

The ironic thing is military ammo:
* is NOT designed to kill.
* is NOT a high-powered round (more powerful than a pistol round...but less powerful than a hunting round)

3) You completely misunderstand that argument that I am making here. .... With modern weapons, all you need to do is release the trigger and shoot again. I was not referring to automatic weapons as you seem to think, ... the effective rate of fire faster ...

A) what you describe IS an automatic weapon.
B) Because of muzzle rise, the faster the rate of fire...the less rounds you will put on target.

Hague Convention

... How is that conflating CWA into small arms?

Because CWA is not a small arm. You are using something superfolous to talk around an inconvienent truth.

No, your words were "military small arms" so let's make that distinction clear. Secondly, military weapons (large or small arms) are used for often a completely different purpose than weapons owned by the civilian population for private use and are not subject to the same sets of rules and laws. And again, you drop my argument about the idea of "death not being inevitable" completely.

1) Small arms are rifles, pistols and shotguns. Sometimes rocket launchers, machine guns, and grenade launchers are considered small arms. Basically anything that can be carried by an infantryman.
2) The purpose of military small arms is to injure the target. The purpose of a hunting round is to kill as quickly as possible.
3) "death not being inevitable" is the terminology that led to the FMJ round becoming standard military ammo.

Be that as it may, guns are still the most deadly form of weapon available today.

Not true. It's called chemicals and HME...but that's for later.

The result is the Full Metal Jacket round that is the least lethal type of bullet out there. It is so NOT lethal that its use in hunting is prohibited...and therefore unethical for shooting.

Oh, so it's unethical to shoot animals with it, but its okay if we want to shoot people with it?

Yes. If you only injure an enemy soldier you:
* remove two other soldiers from battle to get him medical care.
* you impose a cost on supplies in theater to treat him and send him back to the states.
* you impose a social cost on the country in terms of support and treatment costs.

If you kill him, you may only incite his buddies to fighter harder.

Now for hunting...you do not want the animal to suffer. You want to kill the animal quickly.

Pimps & Hoes

2 of the 3 specific items you mention support my argument, not yours. ...

If you think that...there is not anything I can say that will show you the fallacy of that argument.

... All you are doing is trying to deny the existence of statistics by floating hypothetical arguments that may or may not have a basis in reality.

Not at all...that article does not say how it operationalizes abused women and/or domestic abuse for the purpose of its argument.

Black Market

1) A) if the USFG is a participant rather than a supplier that means US guns are not fueling the sales of black market weapons, it means the USFG is increasing demand for black market weapons.

I never said we were a supplier...more we engage in the transfer of black market weapons.

B) you have no causal proof that ANY of those weapons have returned to the US and have been used in the perpetration of a crime.

1) You misuse 'causal proof'. Secondly, the conversation was in response to the idea that Mexico's gun problem is because of our gun laws.

Most weapons found on the black market feature no such markings, meaning that these weapons are acquired from other countries, not the US.

We transfer weapons to the people fighting our enemies. It is a good thing not to have it traceable back to us.

Again, you fail to show causal proof that these weapons return to the US and are used in the commission of violent crime domestically.

Again...not talking about just domestic crime but something different.

3) Still prohibitively expensive for the crack dealer down the street or the guy on the corner slinging meth to acquire. These people turn to dealing drugs in many cases either to support their own habits or support a family.

Not true. AKs are cheap the world over. Also the black market has two functions: a) provide a cheap alternative to legal goods and b) provide illegal goods.

In the case of guns it is function a. AKs are cheap in S. America too. Now if smuggling added so much to the cost of a good...we wouldn't have cocaine flowing into the country nor would we have an illegal immigrant problem because the cost of their labor would go up to pay the smugglers.

Give me an instance where a meth manufacturer used their chemical knowledge to purposely inflict mass violence. Outside of McVeigh, it rarely happens. And how did we get to talking about chemical weapons, anyway? Nice attempt to change the subject.

* I brought up meth to show that complex chemical procedures can be done by people without traditional skill sets or lab experience.

* Psychology tells us that suicide is uneffected by gun availability...if we waived a magic wand and took away all guns our suicide rate would remain unchanged. Now, having had a kid in my home who was actively planning an attack on my high school...I can tell you that taking away guns will refocus them to things like a gas attack or HME. Columbine used HME. Holmes in Colorado used HME and somesort of chemical.

See my prior argument about the lack of availability of funds. Spending 300$ on chemical agents when you can't afford food or shelter is a non sequitor.

Your lack of availability of funds argument is the non sequitor. As I stated, I brought up meth to show how regular people can figure out how to make chemical...stuff. One or two CWAs are actually about a 100x easier to make than meth.

Now the reason I brought up $300 was not in relation to meth heads. I brought it up talking about mass shooters. Holmes spent triple that on his rifle alone. Not to mention his pistols, shotgun and all the ammo he stockpiled. So you see...the cost of $300 would not be a prohibitive factor.

[cont.]

---

Your Argument vs. Mine

I will freely admit that I do not have the technical knowledge - I purposely choose not to. I would qualify in the group of people denied gun registration under the federal register because of mental health issues (even though I am not actually required to be registered on that list, which is a problem that needs to be solved). Nevertheless, I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge of firearms to say that "these problems must end, and we must change... Surely, we can do better than this."

If you know you do not have the technical knowledge, how can you be comfortable to say anything? I mean...seriously...if you are ignorant of something and yet offer suggestions to fix the problems involving said something...how do you know that your suggestions will either be effective or worse cause more problems than they solve?

Down that path lay foolishness...not wisdom my friend.

On the other hand...

There is an argument to be made for psychological reactions to these events. How many times do you want to have to explain to your children who watch the news that there are bad people in the world who will do bad things? More importantly, how many times can parents have that conversation with their children before the effects become cumulative? We have a sickening amount of experience in this country when it comes to mass shootings, and that in and of itself is an indictment of this country. Something is wrong, and needs to be changed.

First off, I agree with the last thing you said. However, guns are not the problem...nor are their availability. Like I've said before, I have way too much personal experience in this realm. Taking away guns was not what held my brother-in-law's hand in carrying out an attack on my high school and targeting my mother in the elementary. It was the intervention and love of my ex-wife and I. It was us taking him out of a toxic environment at home and at school.

Secondly, taking away guns does not remove the bad people in world nor will it keep them from doing bad things. Again, my brother-in-law's back-up plan if he could not get the guns he wanted involved HME and creating a chemical cloud. And that would have produced far worse death and destruction.

You also completely fail to address some of the key parts of my argument which I named as I went through your response. Regardless, there are cases of weapons that are currently legally available in this country that we need to have a national discussion about. More importantly, we have to find some way to prevent weapons that are both legal and legally acquired from falling into the hands of people like Ryan/Adam Lanza (I forget which one was the shooter). I mentioned a couple of ideas myself in this post, but if you are the smarty-pants of guns, what is your solution to this problem? Do you have one? Or are you no better than the Westboro Bapti

I agree we need to discuss weapons. Most people are entirely ignorant of things like calibur and just how effective the rate of fire makes a weapon. The thing is, if we had this discussion frankly and honestly the gun control crowd would lose. Afterall, the cry is to ban things like the AK and AR-15...which are used rarely in mass shootings for all the reasons I've discussed previously. So why are they bringing it up now? Because it is low hanging fruit. It is something that they have the best chance of achieving because they can take advantage of the ignorance of people (like yourself as you freely admit) to manipulate their emotions. When such a public policy would take resources away from programs that would do more to reduce violent crime.

Also with your ideas...as you admit to being technologically ignorant of firearms, I most likely ignored them because they are ineffective. They've been tried and have had no impact.

But you ask about my ideas. By proceeding with an assault weapons ban, we take money, manpower and resources from programs such as education, small business administration, and mental health. Each dollar taken away from these programs increase the chance of another person being murdered. Education, economic opportunity and ethnic friction (ie: having an underpriviledged ethnic minority such as urban blacks) all prove to have a causal relathionship to violent crime rates. Gun control and gun availability...do not have any such causal relationship. So you pursue that public policy...you are throwing money and lives away.

And on a personal note. I would not admit to ignorance and build a highly emotionally charged argument against someone who is technically and academically an expert on a subject...and then proceed to compare that person to the asshats at Westboro. Take a look in the mirror...that's who the analogy is more apt for.

---

At 12/18/12 07:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/17/12 05:18 PM, TheMason wrote: I do worry that having had three shootings since June, and the latest one being so emotionally gut-wrenching...Obama will find the political capital to push through something.

yeah and it doesn't help when Obama says "he will do everything in his power".

I agree with Revo earlier. This is a prime opportunity for Democrats to push something anti-gun through. Never mind they are talking about firearms that are rarely used in these (or any) types of crimes.

Plus we've got a pussy Speaker of the House. In the 'fiscal cliff' negotiations he's letting Obama body-check him and have his way with him like he was a $10 whore.

---

At 12/17/12 05:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/17/12 04:34 PM, TheMason wrote: A) Pistols and hunting rifles are far more deadly than assault rifles because of the ammo that is more common for them.

I know, but most people don't know that, and that includes non-career criminals. Ask people on the street, and 100 light criminals (i.e. ones that have not committed a gun crime before, or have done it just a few times) and chances are damn near all of them will say assault rifles are deadlier.

I know this sounds perverse...but isn't that a good thing? If some moron is going to go out with evil intentions...don't we want them having the least lethal weapon? Doesn't bad guys having assault rifles work in the favor of the victim?

B) On the other hand, hunting with AK-47s and SKSs have become increasingly more common

But they are still extremely rare compared to hunting rifles and pistols.

I don't know. The sense I get from being a part of the shooting community is that 'rare' is not a good term to use. 'Less common' maybe. But dude, I see them at every gun store I go to. You go to a gun show you see just as many if not slightly more assault rifle clones than you see hunting rifles. And only slightly less assault rifles than you see handguns.

Also, there is the price point. If we're talking about AKs and SKSs, we're talking about $250 for the SKS (about the same as a .22) or $500-700 for the AK. Then there is the ammo. I can buy Russian surplus for about $6.25 for a box of 20. I spend $20 for a box of 20 .270 deer hunting ammo. $25-30 for 20-25 self defense handgun rounds. $20-25 for 50 FMJ target handgun rounds.

Now American assault rifles such as AR-15s and Mini-14s do tend to be very expensive ($900-1,200 for the AR-15 and about $700 for the Mini-14). In the case of an AR you can't use the cheap Russian ammo...but have to use brass which costs about $10-12 per box of 20.

Also their lighter recoil and shorter overall length make them good for training kids and new shooters. As well as their ruggedness. My wife and I are trying to have a kid...and if they want to go deer hunting my AK will be his/her first deer rifle.

But the point is they are no longer 'rare' but 'common'. :)

As for the rest...I absolutely agree with you. :)

---

At 12/18/12 05:33 PM, TheMason wrote: I know this sounds perverse...but isn't that a good thing? If some moron is going to go out with evil intentions...don't we want them having the least lethal weapon? Doesn't bad guys having assault rifles work in the favor of the victim?

That's kind of what I was hinting at. Not directly saying it or advocating it, but implying and suggesting the possibility.

I don't know. The sense I get from being a part of the shooting community is that 'rare' is not a good term to use. 'Less common' maybe. But dude, I see them at every gun store I go to. You go to a gun show you see just as many if not slightly more assault rifle clones than you see hunting rifles. And only slightly less assault rifles than you see handguns.

But you said 'shooting community' and 'gun show'. How many people belong to a shooting community or have ever been to a gun show? Not that many.

Where do a good amount on non-gun enthusiasts buy their hunting rifles? Places like Dicks or WalMart where they only sell the hunting rifle style rifles.

I am not talking about the enthusiast just as I was not talking about the experience or connected hard criminals (as they make up a fairly small number of gun crime criminals). I am talking about the Joe blows. The people who are about as experienced with the capabilities of different types of guns as my family. The average husband who finds his wife cheating and then murders her or the lover (or both) and the true loser criminal who spontaneously gets a gun to aid his crime.

But the point is they are no longer 'rare' but 'common'. :)

Again, you're not exactly a lay person when it comes to guns. When I was at law school it was 'common' for people to have undergraduate degrees, and fairly common for people to have several degrees including two undergards and a masters, but in the real world not that many have bachelor's and extremely few have more than one bachelor's or higher degree. You are in a community that knows this and acts accordingly, whereas the vast majority do not and act based on what they think they know, which is often wrong.

---

Ok, let's establish something right now. If you refer to any semi-automatic weapon as an assault rifle, you are not allowed to voice your opinion on the subject because there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle outside of misusing the term. The same applies to calling them high powered, especially if you just got done talking about "hunting" rifles. This shall also extend to anybody who thinks you cannot hunt with an AK or AR.

---

At 12/18/12 07:39 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ok, let's establish something right now. If you refer to any semi-automatic weapon as an assault rifle, you are not allowed to voice your opinion on the subject because there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle outside of misusing the term.

So we should just use your 100% self serving definition that isn't backed up by any source? We should also ignore the fact that there are multiple different definitions that fit under the vague term of "assault rifle'?

No thanks. I'll stick to the REAL world.

---

At 12/18/12 10:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So we should just use your 100% self serving definition that isn't backed up by any source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition

Select fire is a requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire

That means more than just semi automatic.

We should also ignore the fact that there are multiple different definitions that fit under the vague term of "assault rifle'?

There are assault weapons, which was a boogie man word used to appeal to peoples emotions instead of logic, and there is an assault rifle, which is a recognized term that when used correctly excludes virtually 100% of anything most gun buyers can get their hands on.

---

First off I would like to make the point that I am not one of those gun nuts that sleeps with there gun under there pillow because there afraid that the government might try to take it away. That being said I am still for the second amendment. That's because I believe in the constitution and the truth is you will never be able to stop crazy people from killing other people.
Now many would say "well if you didn't have guns they wouldn't be able to kill so many people." This would be true if it was not possible to kill alot of people very quickly some other way. But the truth is if you get rid of guns they will find another way, with explosives or incendiary devices. Example: All it takes to make a molotov cocktail is to fill an empty bottle with gasoline then put a rag on top then when you want to use it you light the rag on fire and throw it at your target. So getting rid of guns will not stop this.
Then I here people say "well if you get more gun regulations then we can stop someone like him from owning a gun." The thing these people fail to realize is that there are already regulations that stopped him from owning a gun. He got his gun by stealing it from his mother. Those regulations make no difference because criminals will just steal or buy a gun off the black market.
If your still not convinced I would like to point out how unrealistic the idea of getting rid of all guns is. First off the right to bar arms is in an amendment to the constitution. Now in order to get rid of guns you would need to pass another amendment to the constitution to over rid that. But getting an amendment past is very difficult. You need two thirds majority of congress to pass an amendment and you will never get that with getting rid of guns because its is to controversial. All the Republicans would be against it and even alot of democrats would be against getting rid of guns completely.
Finally even if you did get it past (which is impossible) what do you think would happen? The red necks would certainly rebel and we would have another civil war. Do you really think that is worth it? So lets stop this whole thing and just except that this is part of the second amendment.

---

At 12/19/12 04:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

damn this is not good if the Republican congress and NRA doesn't block this I will have to seriously stock up on more firearms and ammo.

"Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

---

At 12/19/12 05:17 PM, Feoric wrote: "Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

Take me for example. I am planning on over the years purchasing a metric fuckton (Give or take a few fucks) load of ammo and several more firearms. If the regulations start hitting, I need to speed things along to ensure I can still get them.

---

At 12/19/12 05:17 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/19/12 04:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

damn this is not good if the Republican congress and NRA doesn't block this I will have to seriously stock up on more firearms and ammo.

"Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

it may be illegal to purchase certain things after a ban takes place but you may be allowed to keep/sell/trade ones available before a ban came through after it is passed.