Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

You on the other hand do want my civil liberties infringed on by means of federal power, which is incredibly hypocritical.

I believe she's asking for gun rights to be limited.

Just as sharing one's genitals is legally limited.

No right is without limits.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

I'm a libertarian, so I don't care what you do with your genitals or whom you marry as long as you aren't doing anything that disturbs my civil liberties.

You on the other hand do want my civil liberties infringed on by means of federal power, which is incredibly hypocritical.

And you ask what chance a few guns is going to give citizens during a resistance against tyranny? Tyrants have problems with armed citizens on any level...

Like in France...
Image

Please point out where I said anything about being in favor of taking your guns away?

I was pointing out that your condescending post was way off the mark, as I am reminded every day what it's like to live without the same rights as everyone else. And it's not just about "genitals".

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Please point out where I said anything about being in favor of taking your guns away?

I was pointing out that your condescending post was way off the mark, as I am reminded every day what it's like to live without the same rights as everyone else. And it's not just about "genitals".

No, you just believe in the incremental power grab of statist authoritarians, yet turn around and take issue with your own civil rights being attacked.

That's a hypocrite.

All the dumb reasons you can spout off for gun control have an equivalent in the gay marriage debate among the fringe evangelicals. I take issue with them, and I take issue with you.

The government should not be in the business of taking rights away from people. People who advocate such need to remember that the same useful idiots that propped up Castro and Mao are the same fools that got executed first.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

No, you just believe in the incremental power grab of statist authoritarians, yet turn around and take issue with your own civil rights being attacked.

Please, teach me more about what I believe. Obviously you haven't read any of my posts in these threads.

I've said two things over and over:

Take better care of our mentally ill and do things to ensure those who own guns are responsible - and if for some reason a gun they own is fired (accidentally or criminally) by someone who is not them they should be held accountable.

The problem with paranoia, is that you think everyone is against you. You ignore what everyone is actually saying and doing and instead complain about what might happen.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Please, teach me more about what I believe. Obviously you haven't read any of my posts in these threads.

I've said two things over and over:

Take better care of our mentally ill and do things to ensure those who own guns are responsible - and if for some reason a gun they own is fired (accidentally or criminally) by someone who is not them they should be held accountable.

The problem with paranoia, is that you think everyone is against you. You ignore what everyone is actually saying and doing and instead complain about what might happen.

No, the fact that you humoristically refer to the 2nd as a "right" is telling enough.

I'll just leave you with the warning that overpowering your government is inherently dangerous, and any notion that you can have your rabid dog attack your enemies and not eventually get bit yourself is naive.

Libertarians seem to get this.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

No, the fact that you humoristically refer to the 2nd as a "right" is telling enough.

I'll just leave you with the warning that overpowering your government is inherently dangerous, and any notion that you can have your rabid dog attack your enemies and not eventually get bit yourself is naive.

Libertarians seem to get this.

Dude...I'm not sure when I "humoristically" referred to the 2nd as a "right", but you obviously know more about me than I do.

I've tried to have discussions in an effort to learn and see other points of view. I posted the provisions that the state of NY passed in an effort to generate discussion on something real and not just paranoid speculation - I've found that some have absolutely no interest in doing the same.



Good luck...

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

I'll just leave you with the warning that overpowering your government is inherently dangerous, and any notion that you can have your rabid dog attack your enemies and not eventually get bit yourself is naive.

Libertarians seem to get this.

There aren't enough eye rolls in the world.

You'll have to settle for three ... and imagine how many more are implied.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

That is the common misconception right there.
M-16 is NOT an AR-15, even if they look almost identical.

M-16 is a fully automatic MACHINE GUN.
AR-15 is a RIFLE that automatically cambers the next round.

Well, technically speaking, both the machine gun and the semi-auto chamber the next round, the machine gun, however, allows for a constant stream of fire without a new trigger pull.

...I believe AR-15 is also longer, harder to swing it around to engage enemy targets.

There are so many AR-15 variants that you can't make this argument, however, the standard for both is 20 inches, because the AR-15 is the civilian pattern for the original M-16.

...The M1 Garand, which looks exactly like a bolt action rifle, is in same class as AR-15.

I think you're overstating the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16. While the difference between single-shot, select and auto-fire is important and significant within the mechanics of the rifle, they are in other respects nearly the same weapon. It's equivalent to arguing that a truck model with V6 gas engine is completely different from the one with the diesel engine. There's a fundamental and important difference, but they're very similar and with the right mechanic, so to speak, we can make an AR-15 full-auto.

Mechanically speaking, the M1 has a different loading mechanism than either the AR-15 or the M-14, so the difference between the M1 and the Springfield it replaced is more significant than the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16.

Originally Posted by StruckANerve

If you support an AWB please tell me the difference between these 2 Rifles and why 1 would be more dangerous than the other.

Ruger Mini 14
Image

Ruger SR 556
Image

Originally Posted by StruckANerve

If caring about our rights is misguided, then yes, I am misguided.

Well, which Ruger Mini is it? The one that fires the NATO cartridge? The ranch rifle? Or the AC-556?

Assuming that the Mini-14 is the BOA firing the .222 cartridge and the SR 556 is firing the 5.56 NATO cartridge, I would say the differences are significant.

Which is why the AWB's strictures around cosmetic details was so fundamentally flawed. It should be based around cyclic-rate and cartridge.

Assuming we're going for a ban in the first place.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Chicago is also one of the more corrupt cities in the country.

And one of the most beautiful. I wouldn't live anywhere else in the US.

On topic, I have said before that I am against bans. All I have questioned is the need for people to own "assault weapons", a term which apparently is very broad and not what I thought it meant. I do stand by my opinion that people who do own such weapons should have to have extensive training and licensing. That should not be a big deal.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Assuming that the Mini-14 is the BOA firing the .222 cartridge and the SR 556 is firing the 5.56 NATO cartridge, I would say the differences are significant.

Do your homework.

The Mini14 fires the same round as the SR556...

I know this because I actually own a Mini14.

Also, semi auto weapons do not go cyclic.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

No, you just believe in the incremental power grab of statist authoritarians, yet turn around and take issue with your own civil rights being attacked.

That's a hypocrite.

All the dumb reasons you can spout off for gun control have an equivalent in the gay marriage debate among the fringe evangelicals. I take issue with them, and I take issue with you.

The government should not be in the business of taking rights away from people. People who advocate such need to remember that the same useful idiots that propped up Castro and Mao are the same fools that got executed first.

So. When are you going to join that " Well Regulated Militia" ?


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Peace

So. When are you going to join that " Well Regulated Militia" ?


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Also, people like Technarchy scare me. The government is hardly trying to "walk all over them" and instill marshal law. That kind of thinking disturbs me more than anything else. Mainly because they have no clue as to what not having rights is like.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Also, people like Technarchy scare me. The government is hardly trying to "walk all over them" and instill marshal law. That kind of thinking disturbs me more than anything else. Mainly because they have no clue as to what not having rights is like.

Well what do think about the rest of the world, Techy is a member of your Armed Forces. With people like him representing your country abroad, I think that it speaks for it's self why you have so few allies/friends.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Well what do think about the rest of the world, Techy is a member of your Armed Forces. With people like him representing your country abroad, I think that it speaks for it's self why you have so few allies/friends.

That's even more frightening.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

I'm a libertarian, so I don't care what you do with your genitals or whom you marry as long as you aren't doing anything that disturbs my civil liberties.

You on the other hand do want my civil liberties infringed on by means of federal power, which is incredibly hypocritical.

And you ask what chance a few guns is going to give citizens during a resistance against tyranny? Tyrants have problems with armed citizens on any level...

Like in France...
Image

I take it with that photo that you are trying to give the impression that in France and Europe in General we can't own firearms, well that's not true.

Or you are trying to tell us that we in Europe are not Free, also not true
Or you are trying to say that America is the only Free country, also not true

Well that's three strikes I think that you are out.

You do know there is a name for people who tell things that are not true.

And if you were trying to say that resistance movements rely on home made firearms also not true.

As for resistance it's moved in the 21st Century where we all live it's now the AK 47
Home made it these babies


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvi...plosive_device

Also another way of resistance is to use the weapons that your oppressor gives you.

U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been ordered to halt some joint operations with Afghan security forces after a spate of attacks on American and NATO troops by their local allies.
Gen. John Allen, the chief of U.S. and NATO forces there, has ordered commanders "to review force protection and tactical activities" after several instances in which uniformed Afghans have turned their guns on allied troops, Pentagon spokesman George Little said Monday.
"While some partnered operations are temporarily suspended, many continue -- and regional commanders have the authority to approve more," Little said.
More than 50 coalition troops have been killed in so-called "green-on-blue" attacks in Afghanistan in the first eight and a half months of 2012. Four Americans and two British troops were gunned down over the weekend in attacks believed to involve Afghan police.
In addition, insurgents disguised in U.S. Army uniforms carried out a coordinated assault Friday at a joint American-British base in the same region, raising concerns that the attackers had inside knowledge. That attack destroyed six AV-8B Harrier jets and left two others damaged, international forces said.
"Green-on-blue" refers to a color coding system used by the military, in which blue refers to the friendly force and green refers to allied forces. The spate of green-on-blue attacks come as American and NATO troops are training Afghan soldiers and police to maintain security within the country ahead of the planned end of allied combat operations in 2014.
In August, Allen estimated about a quarter of the attacks are being carried out by infiltrators from the Taliban, the Islamic militia that ruled most of Afghanistan before the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. An earlier Pentagon review that said about 10% were by Taliban forces that had sneaked into Afghan military and police ranks.
"It's less about the precision of 25 versus 10 than it is acknowledging that the Taliban are seeking ultimately to have some impact in the formation," Allen said.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has blamed the attacks on foreign spy agencies hoping to undermine Afghan security institutions, but he did not specifically identify any countries.



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/17/wo...cks/index.html


But if you are right the answer would be to arm all Afghan people.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Peace

So. When are you going to join that " Well Regulated Militia" ?


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

1: I earned my combat patch a long time ago. What about you? Maybe we've crossed paths in Iraq of Afghanistan.

2. Tell if you've read this before...Probably not. Now you know who the militia is and how it is not all under federal control like the National Guard currently is for the most part.

The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

----------

Originally Posted by Happybunny

I take it with that photo that you are trying to give the impression that in France and Europe in General we can't own firearms, well that's not true.

Or you are trying to tell us that we in Europe are not Free, also not true
Or you are trying to say that America is the only Free country, also not true

Jesus H Christ. Do you not know what the Liberator is or it's history?

The French were largely disarmed by the Germans after the occupation, so the USA dropped the liberator into France. It's a single shot .45 caliber pistol that was air dropped into France, and ragtag bands of resistance fighters were able to get these guns, kill a few Germans and get better weapons off their bodies, which in turn helped them fight the Germans harder and cause all kinds of havoc until D-Day.

So when people say, what can a simple gun do against a powerful standing military with bigger and better weapons...Well I present the liberator as the answer. Thankfully there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment that should protect Americans from having to use such crude weapons.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

1: I earned my combat patch a long time ago. What about you? Maybe we've crossed paths in Iraq of Afghanistan.

2. Tell if you've read this before...Probably not. Now you know who the militia is and how it is not all under federal control like the National Guard currently is for the most part.



----------



Jesus H Christ. Do you not know what the Liberator is or it's history?

The French were largely disarmed by the Germans after the occupation, so the USA dropped the liberator into France. It's a single shot .45 caliber pistol that was air dropped into France, and ragtag bands of resistance fighters were able to get these guns, kill a few Germans and get better weapons off their bodies, which in turn helped them fight the Germans harder and cause all kinds of havoc until D-Day.

So when people say, what can a simple gun do against a powerful standing military with bigger and better weapons...Well I present the liberator as the answer. Thankfully there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment that should protect Americans from having to use such crude weapons.

Bla bla bla.

I did my time during Vietnam .

The constitution doesn't mention unregulated militias. It says " A well REGULATED Militia"

Do you understand what regulated means ?

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Jesus H Christ. Do you not know what the Liberator is or it's history?

The French were largely disarmed by the Germans after the occupation, so the USA dropped the liberator into France. It's a single shot .45 caliber pistol that was air dropped into France, and ragtag bands of resistance fighters were able to get these guns, kill a few Germans and get better weapons off their bodies, which in turn helped them fight the Germans harder and cause all kinds of havoc until D-Day.

So when people say, what can a simple gun do against a powerful standing military with bigger and better weapons...Well I present the liberator as the answer. Thankfully there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment that should protect Americans from having to use such crude weapons.

Well thats just paying back for what France did in the ARW.
They didn't send a few crude guns, they sent you an army.

In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, from 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America's victory over the Crown, but France gained little except large debts.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_...olutionary_War

So a century later you send a few crude guns

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Well thats just paying back for what France did in the ARW.
They didn't send a few crude guns, they sent you an army.

In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, from 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America's victory over the Crown, but France gained little except large debts.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_...olutionary_War

So a century later you send a few crude guns

Yeah...we didn't send an Army to France...Pardon me if I stop responding to you until you're a little better versed on history

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I'm gay. I understand what it's like not to have the same rights as every other American. Do you think purchasing a gun is going to help my cause? Who should I start with?

You have more rights than I do. Instead of planning for a "never going to happen" scenario, embrace what you have. And hopefully if you ever have the chance to vote on civil rights, you'll remember this conversation.

And frankly what makes you think owning a few guns is going to give you a chance against our government?

I believe most people here, and most in general, judging from a poll I heard talked about on AFN want you to have all the rights everyone else has. Not granting you those rights is just as bad as taking away others. Worse yet your rights have been removed mainly because of god...

In general:

This is how this will play out we'll get some sort of AWB next year there will be fewer or no mass shootings and everyone will pat themselves on the back for being so prescient the it'll be back to normal the year after, everyone will shake their heads at the sad state of affairs in the US. Teary eyed parents will call for bans since laws don't work etc. Sad, Repeated and Pathetic.

I don't find it surprising that there is an increase in gun sales in there was an increase in sales before the last AWB what makes this one so special?

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Yeah...we didn't send an Army to France...Pardon me if I stop responding to you until you're a little better versed on history

Image

That is of course true. But you certainly didn't do it alone.There were 70,000 Americans, 60,000 British and 20,000 Canadians on D day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings
The US is very good at writing others out of the history books when it suits them.
But you would not have been able to make even those landings without your allies, mostly Russia who was a the time tying up most of the German Armed Forces.

The fact of the matter is that you able to land in 44, was down to the battles fought in Russia back in 43.

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

[k995]

Originally Posted by Menel

What dictionary are you using to equate 'shall not be infringed" into a restriction?

ALL the current excisting restrictions infringe then? Yet they are still legal.

You seem to take YOUR interpretation as an absolute for the entire USA . In reality the judicinal system deceides on such matters in the end, not you.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8"

We strip away voting and firearm possession rights from felons.

Why do we not strip 4,000lb dangerous machinery from them as well. Cars kill far more. Yet we let irresponsible, socially or otherwise, people drive.

Broken!

Not at all, drivers licenses are just as well taken from people if they show to be unresponsible.


And I wonder, how does banning someone from purchasing weapons not infringe his rights under the second amendment ?

You take it as an absolute ben then start making up restrictions yourself. All what people are proposing is more of those restrictions no different.

----------

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Jesus H Christ. Do you not know what the Liberator is or it's history?

The French were largely disarmed by the Germans after the occupation, so the USA dropped the liberator into France. It's a single shot .45 caliber pistol that was air dropped into France, and ragtag bands of resistance fighters were able to get these guns, kill a few Germans and get better weapons off their bodies, which in turn helped them fight the Germans harder and cause all kinds of havoc until D-Day.


So when people say, what can a simple gun do against a powerful standing military with bigger and better weapons...Well I present the liberator as the answer.

Why? The french resistance barely scratched germans occupying france.

btw :

"General Eisenhower's staff never saw the practicality in mass dropping the Liberator over occupied Europe, and authorized distribution of fewer than 25,000 of the half million FP-45 pistols shipped to Great Britain for the French resistance. Generals Joseph Stillwell and Douglas MacArthur were similarly unenthusiastic about the other half of the pistols scheduled for shipment to the Pacific. The Army then turned 450,000 Liberators over to the OSS. Resistance fighters in both theatres were supplied with more effective weapons whenever possible, and French use of the FP-45 remains undocumented; although OSS distributed a few to Greek resistance forces in 1944. One-hundred-thousand FP-45 pistols were shipped to China in 1943, but the number actually distributed remains unknown. A few were distributed to Philippine troops under the Commonwealth Army and Constabulary and resistance fighters.[1"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

SO you basicly made up the efect it had on german troops.

Thankfully there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment that should protect Americans from having to use such crude weapons.

Yeah because a semi automatic AR15 against drones and tanks will be more effective?

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by k995

"General Eisenhower's staff never saw the practicality in mass dropping the Liberator over occupied Europe, and authorized distribution of fewer than 25,000 of the half million FP-45 pistols shipped to Great Britain for the French resistance. Generals Joseph Stillwell and Douglas MacArthur were similarly unenthusiastic about the other half of the pistols scheduled for shipment to the Pacific. The Army then turned 450,000 Liberators over to the OSS. Resistance fighters in both theatres were supplied with more effective weapons whenever possible, and French use of the FP-45 remains undocumented; although OSS distributed a few to Greek resistance forces in 1944. One-hundred-thousand FP-45 pistols were shipped to China in 1943, but the number actually distributed remains unknown. A few were distributed to Philippine troops under the Commonwealth Army and Constabulary and resistance fighters.[1"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

SO you basicly made up the efect it had on german troops.


Yeah because a semi automatic AR15 against drones and tanks will be more effective?

Just a follow up, another fact that is mostly over looked today is the fact that some of the best Resistance groups were Communist. This was true in all occupied Europe, after the war this fact was soon put under the rug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by k995

ALL the current excisting restrictions infringe then? Yet they are still legal.

You seem to take YOUR interpretation as an absolute for the entire USA . In reality the judicinal system deceides on such matters in the end, not you.






Not at all, drivers licenses are just as well taken from people if they show to be unresponsible.


And I wonder, how does banning someone from purchasing weapons not infringe his rights under the second amendment ?

You take it as an absolute ben then start making up restrictions yourself. All what people are proposing is more of those restrictions no different.

----------


Why? The french resistance barely scratched germans occupying france.

btw :

"General Eisenhower's staff never saw the practicality in mass dropping the Liberator over occupied Europe, and authorized distribution of fewer than 25,000 of the half million FP-45 pistols shipped to Great Britain for the French resistance. Generals Joseph Stillwell and Douglas MacArthur were similarly unenthusiastic about the other half of the pistols scheduled for shipment to the Pacific. The Army then turned 450,000 Liberators over to the OSS. Resistance fighters in both theatres were supplied with more effective weapons whenever possible, and French use of the FP-45 remains undocumented; although OSS distributed a few to Greek resistance forces in 1944. One-hundred-thousand FP-45 pistols were shipped to China in 1943, but the number actually distributed remains unknown. A few were distributed to Philippine troops under the Commonwealth Army and Constabulary and resistance fighters.[1"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

SO you basicly made up the efect it had on german troops.


Yeah because a semi automatic AR15 against drones and tanks will be more effective?

These were the same generation of generals that never saw the practicality in the use of special operations soldiers. These same generals never really saw the benefit of the OSS, and later the CIA. Like much military history none of this stuff is ever said but intelligence is disregarded, help is not necessarily given and so on. My favorite general of that era MacArthur was truly a scoffer of non conventional soldiers and tactics even though he used them.

In the same vein I also question the impact of that one weapon but don't dismiss the impact of the french resistance. De Gaulle always excepted.

----------

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Just a follow up, another fact that is mostly over looked today is the fact that some of the best Resistance groups were Communist. This was true in all occupied Europe, after the war this fact was soon put under the rug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance

To people who enjoy history and reading this stuff it's not swept under the rug..

The motives for the resistance didn't agree with the general motives for the US in the war that's realistically why it's not in general history books.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Unfortunately they also can't legislate for brains. Please note where I live. Thank you
Plus I'm am a Gun owner
Sig 226
Ruger 101
Franchi Instinct SL Skeet 12 gauge

Location data is shared in neither the mobile site, nor Tapatalk.

If its relevant to your point. Or you have statistics that are relevant, please share in the body of your argument,

Thats good to hear about Netherlands. Is your situation common? Per that article's statistics, Netherlands violent crime is similarly low as in the USA at roughly 1/4 of Britain's!