What's new
By:

Gun Control

One Brow said:
Different restrictions may or may not be useful. I would disagree with saying that all restrictions are beneficial.
Click to expand...

Gameface is trying to offer an olive branch. I have to defer to him on knowledge of guns. I've never had a gun, and don't want one, I don't even like to hunt. I hope you and gameface can share info enough to figure out which restrictions could make sense. . . . for me, after reading a lot of books on holocaust victims and Solzhenitsyn's Gulag tales, I just figure there is no good reason the government authorities will ever respect. It's all about how to render you and the rest of the commoners politically impotent. So I say just don't give them any pretext to stand on.

that was the considered opinion after the fact of those who had to put their lives on the line for independence in America in 1776.
 
babe said:
Israel's government today has moved hard against segments of their population that pose real threats to the general peace, and in doing so have become more influenced over the years by what I call "fascists" or militarist sorts. . . , not to say they haven't always had a strong component of marxists in the mix. And yes, they have some "elites" with inordinate influence in their government. . .

I guess you're sorta trying to make this a racist issue or something. No, it's about the common things governments do. . . . . almost everywhere. . . . unless you take special efforts to keep it from being done in the good old-fashioned warlord/merchantmonopolist way.

When I was in Israel I was appreciative of the soldiers in their stations with their weapons on display, ready for use in an instant. I'm sure it kept me alive where my throat would have been slit just as quickly if they had not been there.

I've said it before, but Obama and the media moguls all know how to protect their kids, they just don't want our kids to have the same protection. But the good news is that the kids going back to school now will have armed police very visible around them. . . .
Click to expand...

I waited a couple of days. I thought that if I did I would come to a different conclusion as far as JF goes. Sadly, no. I will try to be a reasonable person. But I will also stand up for my own self. Anyways, cheers.
 
babe said:
The British disarmed India without a whimper, and it took a Gandhi to remove the actual presence of British troops. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be a Gandhi in some small way. India still hasn't shaken itself free of British neocolonialism under the false flag of the UN, and we still have British Lords wishing they could die and come back as a plague capable of decimating the human population on Planet Earth. . . . so there could be bigger forests to run the dogs after the foxes where gallant nobility could ride their fine steeds unimpeded by human rabble. . . .
Click to expand...

See my current signature...
 
Brown Notes said:
I waited a couple of days. I thought that if I did I would come to a different conclusion as far as JF goes. Sadly, no. I will try to be a reasonable person. But I will also stand up for my own self. Anyways, cheers.
Click to expand...

I hardly think I represent JF in general.

And don't get me wrong, I think standing up for your own self is what it is all about.

I might try to shake you up if I consider you're standing inside some comfy insulated bubble all rosy with happiness at the way things are, and I think there's reason to move along. . . . but probably in the current time very few would call me "progressive" or "reasonable". . . . unless you can catch my drift. . . . that I think "progressive" is something that accumulates in the power of individuals their inherent, natural, or some would say "God-given" liberties and human dignity. And not things that accumulate in the hands of government or special folks their prerogatives to lord it over the rest.

but being able to stand apart from a discussion after having said a piece, or leave others to muddle in their angst.. . .does in my view lend a little credence to your stature as "reasonable". At some point along the way, even amongst folks who are on the same bandwagon. . . . we all have to both leave others as they choose to be, and live in our own way. . . .

well, unless we just can't get through with the idea that "there oughta be a law" to fix other people our way. . . .

cheers.
 
One Brow said:
You do realize that Gandhi was referring to military membership and military arms, not personal arms, right?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't just assume that from the quote itself. . . . . maybe if I had the source and could read it all it might come out like that. . . .

but seriously, the only reason the Brits would pass an act that proscribes 'native Indians' from having their own military units is because they are, after all, an occupying imperialist force, right???? I'm sure it was intended to prevent the subjects from learning how to project armed power in their own interests. . . . which really makes it in fact an issue of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms without infringement. . . . .

You really think that's right? I mean, in your dream world, you want some superior nation just lording it over lesser nations?
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
Not sure i understand the point of this..... She shot a man with a .38 handgun that she legally bought right?

I dont think any gun control measures are being talked about in this thread that say people who can pass a background check should not be able to buy small handguns.
Click to expand...

You realize it's possible to fire that revolver just as fast as an "assault weapon?"
 
Gameface said:
You realize it's possible to fire that revolver just as fast as an "assault weapon?"
Click to expand...

Seems that she only needed 5 bullets and a small handgun to defend herself..... Im just saying that using that particular example to say there shouldn't be gun control doesn't work.
Most of this thread has been discussing whether or not to restrict magazine capacity or to ban assault rifles, so in this example the woman seemed to do just fine with 5 bullets from a .38

If she had used an assualt rifle with 30 round clips to stop a gang of intruders from getting her, then that would have made sense in regards to supporting scats stance on this issue.
 
fishonjazz said:
Seems that she only needed 5 bullets and a small handgun to defend herself..... Im just saying that using that particular example to say there shouldn't be gun control doesn't work.
Most of this thread has been discussing whether or not to restrict magazine capacity or to ban assault rifles, so in this example the woman seemed to do just fine with 5 bullets from a .38

If she had used an assualt rifle with 30 round clips to stop a gang of intruders from getting her, then that would have made sense in regards to supporting scats stance on this issue.
Click to expand...

Much of the argument I hear against "assault weapons" is their ability to be fired rapidly. Just making the point that the revolver she had can be fired just as quickly. Many handguns have magazines that hold 16 rounds. The argument to limit magazine capacity is an argument to make the weapon less effective, for any purpose. I oppose that approach.
 
this is purely speculative and a big assumption on my part, but I wonder - - at least in the case of some of these mass shootings and other seemingly random acts of violence - - if the ability to carry around a huge arsenal of high-powered weapons and ammunitions doesn't somehow feed into the pathology of those who commit these types of acts.

I could be completely off-base in my thinking, but I believe that if Adam Lanza or James Holmes only had access to a typical handgun they wouldn't even have contemplated doing what they did. I think the amount and type of weapons and ammunition they had access to fed their delusions.

Like I said, I could be completely wrong - - and there's no way to know, and I don't know what the solution should be at any rate, but it's just my gut feeling.
 
moevillini said:
this is purely speculative and a big assumption on my part, but I wonder - - at least in the case of some of these mass shootings and other seemingly random acts of violence - - if the ability to carry around a huge arsenal of high-powered weapons and ammunitions doesn't somehow feed into the pathology of those who commit these types of acts.

I could be completely off-base in my thinking, but I believe that if Adam Lanza or James Holmes only had access to a typical handgun they wouldn't even have contemplated doing what they did. I think the amount and type of weapons and ammunition they had access to fed their delusions.

Like I said, I could be completely wrong - - and there's no way to know, and I don't know what the solution should be at any rate, but it's just my gut feeling.
Click to expand...

You know, I don't think you're completely wrong. I owned an AR-15 for a little while. I sold it after a few months because it seemed pretty impractical and I wasn't happy with my ability to shoot it accurately. Having it and holding it it did inspire thoughts of using it valiantly to defend my home from a horde of attackers. That's just straight honesty. Maybe no one else has ever felt that way, but it was the way I felt about it. I got tired of waiting for the zombie apocalypse and figured I could use the money I spent on it better elsewhere.

I just want to say, though. The round these guns fire is a high velocity rifle round, but it isn't especially powerful. So much anti-hype and myth are being spewed from so many sources that it's easy to gain a common understanding of what these guns are that is very false. Many people in the military lament the transition from 7.62mm rounds fired from the M-14 to the 5.56mm used int eh M-16 (AR-15s can often shot both the .223cal and 5.56mm as they are nearly but not completely identical). Part of the reason for the transition was because 5.56mm causes less muzzle rise when fired in a full-auto weapon. Another is because the rounds are smaller and lighter so soldiers can carry more of them. The lore behind the 7.62mm is that it can penetrate a telephone pole and kill a man on the other side. Such is not said of the 5.56mm. The 5.56mm has less force but travels at a higher velocity, therefore it has a flatter trajectory. The higher velocity and smaller diameter also make it more likely to pass through a person when hit. I mentioned it before, but it is advantageous to injure enemies without killing them so that they continue to take up resources. So the 5.56mm round is in part a better round because it is less lethal than it's predecessor. Don't tell that to bad *** tough guys in the military, though. They need the bigger round it seems. They feel the same way about the switch to 9mm rounds in side arms, switching from the legendary .45acp man-stopper.

So, in short, the .223/5.56 round is a mid-powered rifle round. Small diameter, high velocity, low on the total force scale round.

7.62mm vs 5.56mm (AR-15s shoot the 5.56mm/.223cal)

7820986328_66d0e6b7c0_z.jpg


9mm vs .45acp
9mm-45.png
 
Alex Jones on the Piers Morgan show. Absolutely classic. He just keeps going at him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y
 
To bad alex helped piers make gun owners and those who support the 2nd seem like a bunch ofconspiracy theory nuts. Unfortunate.
 
Man, that was a little embarrassing. No need to yell and scream about this when the guy is sitting there trying to have a conversation like a reasonable person.
 
Alex Jones is not the first person I have heard float the theme of "civil war if you try to take our guns".

Having said that it was very entertaining but Alex Jones did himself a disservice. By being so over the top he guaranteed that he will not be invited back and that limits his visability. Being on CNN was a chance to get his view to people who do not normally hear what he has to say.

Entertaining but he shot himself in the foot so to speak.
 
Stoked said:
Alex Jones is not the first person I have heard float the theme of "civil war if you try to take our guns".

Having said that it was very entertaining but Alex Jones did himself a disservice. By being so over the top he guaranteed that he will not be invited back and that limits his visability. Being on CNN was a chance to get his view to people who do not normally hear what he has to say.

Entertaining but he shot himself in the foot so to speak.
Click to expand...

That's his whole schtick though. He did basically the same thing when he went on the View to talk about Charlie Sheen awhile back. I'm guessing he just figures that he just going on shows and saying what he wants is better than sitting there and letting Piers Morgan take up all but 2 minutes or something. I definitely brought it up because of the entertainment factor, not because he went on Piers and had a proper debate or anything. You guys are looking at it completely wrong. Think of the type person that can stomach watching an hour of Piers Morgan every night. Probably really stuffy people. So what's the best way to get through to them? Shock and awe baby. And now he's got a viral video to go along with that that is going to go nuts views wise and have a much bigger impact than CNN could ever bring. Win for his websites and businesses, win for his message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top