I am so sick of guns - Page 2

triforcharity · 16th December 2012, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

A silencer? Are you serious? You need a silencer so that when you are blowing someone away when defending your "castle", you won't be offending neighbours with the noise?

Things are more broken than I thought.

No, I WANT a silencer. However, the almost $1200 PER silencer prevents that.

Yes, I agree, 6 months and $1200 is outrageous and broken. It should be about 10 minutes and $5.

lionking · 16th December 2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, I WANT a silencer. However, the almost $1200 PER silencer prevents that.

Yes, I agree, 6 months and $1200 is outrageous and broken. It should be about 10 minutes and $5.

And people wonder why other nations are critical of the US when it comes to gun control. You want it. Fair enough. I suppose it's good you don't want a bazooka or a flamethrower.

Or maybe you do.......

StankApe · 16th December 2012, 10:08 PM

I made a flame thrower about 15 years ago! it worked really well too. I ended up scrapping it as I could never get over the fear that it would eventually blow up (and it was probably illegal as hell)

The plans were in a book about underground art!

Giz · 16th December 2012, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

And people wonder why other nations are critical of the US when it comes to gun control. You want it. Fair enough. I suppose it's good you don't want a bazooka or a flamethrower.

Or maybe you do.......

You realize that the effect of a "silencer" is to reduce decibels fro (say) 160 to 130, right? As in, from "ear shattering" to "loud but wont suffer from tinnitus for the rest of your life".

triforcharity · 16th December 2012, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

And people wonder why other nations are critical of the US when it comes to gun control. You want it. Fair enough.

I don't give a flying dead rats ass what other nations think of us. They can go pound that same dead rat up their rear for all I care, it matters to me none.

I also want to upgrade my 7.62 to full auto, but that's not going to happen any time soon either.

Originally Posted by lionking

I suppose it's good you don't want a bazooka or a flamethrower.

Or maybe you do.......

Damn right I do! I built a potato gun once....cool as hell too! Too dangerous though for my taste. But, a properly built bazooka.....now we're talking!!

Axiom_Blade · 16th December 2012, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Of course it's a non-starter in the US. Recently the Supreme Court ruled the second amendment to be a personal right -- whether or not we all agree or disagree, it's been ruled on. It's a civil right no matter how distasteful that fact is to some people.

Do you agree with that ruling? Why or why not?

Axiom_Blade · 16th December 2012, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Damn right I do! I built a potato gun once....cool as hell too! Too dangerous though for my taste. But, a properly built bazooka.....now we're talking!!

Wow, there's a solid argument if I ever heard one.
So, if I think that it'd be "cool as hell" to have a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead, does that mean I have a "civil right" to be able to go out and buy one?

StankApe · 16th December 2012, 10:21 PM

I don't think he said anything about having a right to own one,just said he wanted one.

If I had a nuke maybe my freakin neighbor would take care of his yard....

triforcharity · 16th December 2012, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Wow, there's a solid argument if I ever heard one. So, if I think that it'd be "cool as hell" to have a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead, does that mean I have a "civil right" to be able to go out and buy one?

I'd love to play with a small rocket launcher once. Maybe an RPG?

Nuclear warhead? Nah. No thanks. I like to keep my body from glowing....

(But seriously, do you REALLY think that is my argument? That we should be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPG's for fun? If you do, then there's no point in conversing with you, because it's obvious you're not paying attention. Or, you really REALLY love to go to the massive extreme to TRY to win a point......)

Your turn.

triforcharity · 16th December 2012, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I don't think he said anything about having a right to own one,just said he wanted one.

Oh, no I REALLY want one! I'd love to be able to get through traffic on a Friday afternoon. Tell you what, blow up ONE car, and the rest I guarantee and gonna get the **** outta' my way...

Originally Posted by StankApe

If I had a nuke maybe my freakin neighbor would take care of his yard....

OOPS!! What neighbor?!?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

triforcharity · 16th December 2012, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Do you agree with that ruling? Why or why not?

Yes.

Because they (The USSC) are the ruling body, and understand the law, and how it's applied, and how to properly research it, better than the vast majority of the people in the US.

Not to mention that it's pretty hard to not understand.

"Shall not be infringed". Pretty simple eh?

Holy ****, four words!! Someone get me a damn dictionary!

StankApe · 16th December 2012, 10:37 PM

just read that Lieberman and the Dem's are going to try to bring back the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004.

http://news.yahoo.com/lieberman-demo...-politics.html

Of course this will have no affect on these sorts of crimes....

lionking · 16th December 2012, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

just read that Lieberman and the Dem's are going to try to bring back the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004.

http://news.yahoo.com/lieberman-demo...-politics.html

Fingers crossed.

lionking · 16th December 2012, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I don't give a flying dead rats ass what other nations think of us. They can go pound that same dead rat up their rear for all I care, it matters to me none.

As I have said, it would be great if Americans would be consistent and refrain from commenting about issues in other countries.

Fat chance.

StankApe · 16th December 2012, 10:49 PM

as if it was any of your concern......

lionking · 16th December 2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

as if it was any of your concern......

As I have said, it would be great if Americans would be consistent and refrain from commenting about issues in other countries.

And my concerns are not any of your concern......

Andrew Wiggin · 16th December 2012, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I don't know what a 'drunkards walk' means.

A bit of a simplified explanation to avoid a derail, but to hopefully shed some light on the relevance; Drunkard's walk is a mathematical problem. From a starting point on a plane (or in three space or more dimensions) you take multiple steps in random directions, after x steps, what is distance y from your starting point? In most cases, y is small, and remains small as x increases. For dimensions of three or less, the walking drunkard won't actually go anywhere and will eventually return to his starting point.

I don't see any direct relevance to the question, as the drunkard's walk would seem to argue that making random reactionary changes would lead to minimal change over time. This is not an argument for 'Something must be done'. Given that, I don't think it supports the poster's thesis very well.

StankApe · 16th December 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

As I have said, it would be great if Americans would be consistent and refrain from commenting about issues in other countries.

And my concerns are not any of your concern......

where in this thread, nay ANY thread involving gun control has ANYONE said "Australia should ditch their stupid system and follow ours!"?

I haven't noticed it.

You do realize you are talking to individuals here and not representatives of the Federal Govt right?

lionking · 16th December 2012, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

where in this thread, nay ANY thread involving gun control has ANYONE said "Australia should ditch their stupid system and follow ours!"?

I haven't noticed it.

You do realize you are talking to individuals here and not representatives of the Federal Govt right?

Pop over to the Israel/Palestine thread and have a look at the number of US posters holding forth on this issue.

I'm simply pointing out that I will not be deterred from posting my views about US gun policy by those who say "it's not your concern".

StankApe · 16th December 2012, 11:13 PM

This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws.

You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either.

Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.

lionking · 16th December 2012, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws.

You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either.

Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.

And, as I said, while it's within the terms of the MA to comment on US gun policy, I will.

Damien Evans · 17th December 2012, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws.

You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either.

Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.

Explorer · 17th December 2012, 12:14 AM

..

The Don · 17th December 2012, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws.

You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Just because I don't live in the U.S. doesn't mean that I don't have a vested interest in U.S. gun laws. 90% of my relatives live in the U.S. and are subject to the freedoms and dangers that result from the U.S. gun laws.

They represent a reasonably full range of views from my in-laws who don't own guns and don't understand why anyone else would want to, to my uncle who has loaded handguns in just about every room in his house and wouldn't even think about leaving the house without a couple of handguns for personal protection.

Originally Posted by StankApe

Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either.

Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.

For those of us who aren't from the U.S. (and thinking about my in-laws who have atypical views on gun ownership) we don't understand the U.S. relationship with guns. We don't properly understand the full range of reasons to own a gun and, given the way that gun control is treated locally, the need to have immediate access to a gun for personal protection.

I personally would love to understand the mindset that drives the need for a gun for personal protection.

shuttlt · 17th December 2012, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

I don't see any direct relevance to the question, as the drunkard's walk would seem to argue that making random reactionary changes would lead to minimal change over time. This is not an argument for 'Something must be done'. Given that, I don't think it supports the poster's thesis very well.

Again, it's kind of a derail, but I haven't ever argued so far as I recall that something must be done. All I meant to say was that there as quite a bit of variability in the gun ownership stats. Perhaps it's the collection method, perhaps it's that gun ownership is just wobbling about some stable point like 45%, or perhaps it's just wandering around the place more or less randomly as the culture shifts. If it's wandering about randomly and you are prepared to wait long enough it will eventually get low enough that the law can be changed.

shuttlt · 17th December 2012, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.

China?

Sam.I.Am · 17th December 2012, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Ending something like that requires more than a change in culture. It also requires rather drastic and difficult legal action (either an amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling going against previous ones) and a way to enforce it. Cultural change can lead to legal change eventually, but enforcement will remain troublesome. Banning guns or even severely narrowing down the supply of people who are allowed to own them can only be enforced if you can find and confiscate the guns that are already here, including those in the possession of people who have done nothing else that would cause themselves and their property to be searched.

This is along the lines of what I've been thinking about:

The 4th Amendment would pretty much have to be suspended in it's entirety.

The 5th Amendment would also be taking a beating.

In addition HIPPA laws would have to undergo a serious reworking if you want to target mentally ill people and there are some 4th amendment issues there as well.

StankApe · 17th December 2012, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

And, as I said, while it's within the terms of the MA to comment on US gun policy, I will.

as I said in a PM, my comments were chosen carefully not to express my personal feelings about your country ,but to demonstrate the condescending manner in which your comments have sounded to me.

It wasn't a slight on Australia as a people or a nation. But rather a purposeful comment meant to sound equally as smug and elitist as I feel some of the comments you have made in regards to our countries gun laws.

sorry it took me a bit to pop back in here and comment on it, but I wanted to watch a movie.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

China?

At the moment, yes. In twenty years time the daddy country will be India.

Dcdrac · 17th December 2012, 02:56 AM

No civillian needs a semi automatic weapon at all.

That at least should be stopped dead.

crhkrebs · 17th December 2012, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Christ.

What's the point of even having the things?

I don't own my guns to shoot people, if that's what you're asking.

Quote:

This killer would have time to break in, make himself a sandwich out of your fridge, then calmly walk up and axe murder you while you're fumbling through your third or fourth obstacle.

Is that the reason you own guns?

Quote:

Overly onerous regulations are just as intolerable as outright bans.

I disagree. There are overly onerous regulations that everyone has to deal with when it comes to the responsible operation of motor vehicles. Hardly intolerable. It's a safety issue, not a civil rights issue.

rikzilla · 17th December 2012, 04:10 AM

There is no civil right in the USA to have a firearm.

"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"

Neither the perp or the Mom was part of a "well regulated" anything.

Her ownership of these weapons was in no way "necessary to the security of a free state"

and when the 2nd was written there was nowhere in existence a weapon like the AR-15 copy Bushmaster.

rikzilla · 17th December 2012, 04:21 AM

If you think that the Founders put the 2nd in place in order to help topple the government they'd just founded on blood and treasure you are very mistaken.
These guys weren't stupid. The militia was needed because of the on-going
British threat. Also guns in the hands of the people are not necessary to topple tyrants. The citizens of Tunisia and Egypt did it with a mass movement of people, not personal gun ownership. How many American tyrants have we toppled with our personal guns? Now juxtapose that with how many innocent people have lost their lives to gun violence.

Your rights stop at the point where they infringe the rights of others. The 2nd gives you the right to keep a weapon upon joining a well regulated militia. We need to return to the bounds of that language IMHO...

elgarak · 17th December 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

There is no civil right in the USA to have a firearm.

"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"

Neither the perp or the Mom was part of a "well regulated" anything.

Her ownership of these weapons was in no way "necessary to the security of a free state"

and when the 2nd was written there was nowhere in existence a weapon like the AR-15 copy Bushmaster.

I'm not a native English speaker, but I understand that the main part of the 2nd amendment is the second half, after the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The first part is simply an explanation and clarification why the authors think they needed this right. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".... you may notice that this doesn't make sense. It's not a complete sentence. The second half is.

As far as I know, most people agree with my interpretation, including the US Supreme Court.

RenaissanceBiker · 17th December 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

A silencer? Are you serious? You need a silencer so that when you are blowing someone away when defending your "castle", you won't be offending neighbours with the noise?

Things are more broken than I thought.

Silencers protect your hearing. I had to fire my .357 without earplugs once this year and it was painful. It was a mercy kill for a doe that another hunter shot through both back legs.

ETA: If I have to fire one of my guns inside my house, I want my neighbors to know about it.

mikedenk · 17th December 2012, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

There is no civil right in the USA to have a firearm.

Demonstrably wrong. Try again.

CORed · 17th December 2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

There is no civil right in the USA to have a firearm.

"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"

Neither the perp or the Mom was part of a "well regulated" anything.

Her ownership of these weapons was in no way "necessary to the security of a free state"

and when the 2nd was written there was nowhere in existence a weapon like the AR-15 copy Bushmaster.

You are certainly entitled to you opinion about the intent of the founding fathers regarding the 2nd amendment, and the wording is such that a case can be made that the intent was not to provide an individual right to own guns. However, the Supreme court disagrees with your interpretation and it is their opinion that counts in the matter of law. Like it or not, either a different opinion from the Supreme Court, or a constitutional amendment would be necessary to ban individual gun ownership.

CORed · 17th December 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by elgarak

I'm not a native English speaker, but I understand that the main part of the 2nd amendment is the second half, after the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The first part is simply an explanation and clarification why the authors think they needed this right. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".... you may notice that this doesn't make sense. It's not a complete sentence. The second half is.

As far as I know, most people agree with my interpretation, including the US Supreme Court.

If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time, it's pretty clear that the term "militia" referred to the entirety of armed citizens, and not exclusively to organized groups of them administered by the states (although the term "militia" was also applied to these). One can certainly debate whether an individual right to own guns is desirable or not, but, IMO, the claim that an individual right to own guns was not the intent of the 2nd amendment is wishful thinking if not outright revisionism.

CORed · 17th December 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

No civillian needs a semi automatic weapon at all.

That at least should be stopped dead.

Do you actually thing that powering the loading mechanism by the shooter's muscles rather than the powder in the round would slow the rate of If so, you are badly misinformed. fire enough to make a significant difference? Have you ever fired a pump action shotgun, or seen one fired?Restricting magazine capacity might make a difference (but would likely be nearly impossible to enforce). Banning semi-auto actions would be just about completely useless.

DavidJames · 17th December 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by CORed

You are certainly entitled to you opinion about the intent of the founding fathers regarding the 2nd amendment, and the wording is such that a case can be made that the intent was not to provide an individual right to own guns. However, the Supreme court disagrees with your interpretation and it is their opinion that counts in the matter of law. Like it or not, either a different opinion from the Supreme Court, or a constitutional amendment would be necessary to ban individual gun ownership.

Then it's time to begin amendment process. It's about time people realize it's the 21st century and concepts written in the 1700's may need to be readdressed to incorporate technological changes which have occurred in the past 250 years.

16th December 2012, 10:02 PM	#41
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by lionking A silencer? Are you serious? You need a silencer so that when you are blowing someone away when defending your "castle", you won't be offending neighbours with the noise? Things are more broken than I thought. No, I WANT a silencer. However, the almost $1200 PER silencer prevents that. Yes, I agree, 6 months and $1200 is outrageous and broken. It should be about 10 minutes and $5.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

16th December 2012, 10:06 PM	#42
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by triforcharity No, I WANT a silencer. However, the almost $1200 PER silencer prevents that. Yes, I agree, 6 months and $1200 is outrageous and broken. It should be about 10 minutes and $5. And people wonder why other nations are critical of the US when it comes to gun control. You want it. Fair enough. I suppose it's good you don't want a bazooka or a flamethrower. Or maybe you do.......
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th December 2012, 10:08 PM	#43
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I made a flame thrower about 15 years ago! it worked really well too. I ended up scrapping it as I could never get over the fear that it would eventually blow up (and it was probably illegal as hell) The plans were in a book about underground art!
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

16th December 2012, 10:13 PM	#45
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by lionking And people wonder why other nations are critical of the US when it comes to gun control. You want it. Fair enough. I don't give a flying dead rats ass what other nations think of us. They can go pound that same dead rat up their rear for all I care, it matters to me none. I also want to upgrade my 7.62 to full auto, but that's not going to happen any time soon either. Originally Posted by lionking I suppose it's good you don't want a bazooka or a flamethrower. Or maybe you do....... Damn right I do! I built a potato gun once....cool as hell too! Too dangerous though for my taste. But, a properly built bazooka.....now we're talking!!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

16th December 2012, 10:21 PM	#48
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I don't think he said anything about having a right to own one,just said he wanted one. If I had a nuke maybe my freakin neighbor would take care of his yard....
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

16th December 2012, 10:11 PM	#44
Giz Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK/US Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by lionking And people wonder why other nations are critical of the US when it comes to gun control. You want it. Fair enough. I suppose it's good you don't want a bazooka or a flamethrower. Or maybe you do....... You realize that the effect of a "silencer" is to reduce decibels fro (say) 160 to 130, right? As in, from "ear shattering" to "loud but wont suffer from tinnitus for the rest of your life".

16th December 2012, 10:16 PM	#46
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,749	Originally Posted by The Norseman Of course it's a non-starter in the US. Recently the Supreme Court ruled the second amendment to be a personal right -- whether or not we all agree or disagree, it's been ruled on. It's a civil right no matter how distasteful that fact is to some people. Do you agree with that ruling? Why or why not?

16th December 2012, 10:19 PM	#47
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,749	Originally Posted by triforcharity Damn right I do! I built a potato gun once....cool as hell too! Too dangerous though for my taste. But, a properly built bazooka.....now we're talking!! Wow, there's a solid argument if I ever heard one. So, if I think that it'd be "cool as hell" to have a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead, does that mean I have a "civil right" to be able to go out and buy one?

16th December 2012, 10:26 PM	#49
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Wow, there's a solid argument if I ever heard one. So, if I think that it'd be "cool as hell" to have a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead, does that mean I have a "civil right" to be able to go out and buy one? I'd love to play with a small rocket launcher once. Maybe an RPG? Nuclear warhead? Nah. No thanks. I like to keep my body from glowing.... (But seriously, do you REALLY think that is my argument? That we should be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPG's for fun? If you do, then there's no point in conversing with you, because it's obvious you're not paying attention. Or, you really REALLY love to go to the massive extreme to TRY to win a point......) Your turn.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

16th December 2012, 10:29 PM	#50
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by StankApe I don't think he said anything about having a right to own one,just said he wanted one. Oh, no I REALLY want one! I'd love to be able to get through traffic on a Friday afternoon. Tell you what, blow up ONE car, and the rest I guarantee and gonna get the ** outta' my way... Originally Posted by StankApe** If I had a nuke maybe my freakin neighbor would take care of his yard.... OOPS!! What neighbor?!?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

16th December 2012, 10:31 PM	#51
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Do you agree with that ruling? Why or why not? Yes. Because they (The USSC) are the ruling body, and understand the law, and how it's applied, and how to properly research it, better than the vast majority of the people in the US. Not to mention that it's pretty hard to not understand. "Shall not be infringed". Pretty simple eh? Holy ****, four words!! Someone get me a damn dictionary!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

16th December 2012, 10:37 PM	#52
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	just read that Lieberman and the Dem's are going to try to bring back the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004. http://news.yahoo.com/lieberman-demo...-politics.html Of course this will have no affect on these sorts of crimes....
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

16th December 2012, 10:45 PM	#53
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by StankApe just read that Lieberman and the Dem's are going to try to bring back the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004. http://news.yahoo.com/lieberman-demo...-politics.html Fingers crossed.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th December 2012, 10:48 PM	#54
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by triforcharity I don't give a flying dead rats ass what other nations think of us. They can go pound that same dead rat up their rear for all I care, it matters to me none. As I have said, it would be great if Americans would be consistent and refrain from commenting about issues in other countries. Fat chance.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th December 2012, 10:49 PM	#55
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	as if it was any of your concern......
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

16th December 2012, 10:51 PM	#56
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by StankApe as if it was any of your concern...... As I have said, it would be great if Americans would be consistent and refrain from commenting about issues in other countries. And my concerns are not any of your concern......
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th December 2012, 10:55 PM	#57
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by The Norseman I don't know what a 'drunkards walk' means. A bit of a simplified explanation to avoid a derail, but to hopefully shed some light on the relevance; Drunkard's walk is a mathematical problem. From a starting point on a plane (or in three space or more dimensions) you take multiple steps in random directions, after x steps, what is distance y from your starting point? In most cases, y is small, and remains small as x increases. For dimensions of three or less, the walking drunkard won't actually go anywhere and will eventually return to his starting point. I don't see any direct relevance to the question, as the drunkard's walk would seem to argue that making random reactionary changes would lead to minimal change over time. This is not an argument for 'Something must be done'. Given that, I don't think it supports the poster's thesis very well.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

16th December 2012, 11:00 PM	#58
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by lionking As I have said, it would be great if Americans would be consistent and refrain from commenting about issues in other countries. And my concerns are not any of your concern...... where in this thread, nay ANY thread involving gun control has ANYONE said "Australia should ditch their stupid system and follow ours!"? I haven't noticed it. You do realize you are talking to individuals here and not representatives of the Federal Govt right?
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

16th December 2012, 11:08 PM	#59
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by StankApe where in this thread, nay ANY thread involving gun control has ANYONE said "Australia should ditch their stupid system and follow ours!"? I haven't noticed it. You do realize you are talking to individuals here and not representatives of the Federal Govt right? Pop over to the Israel/Palestine thread and have a look at the number of US posters holding forth on this issue. I'm simply pointing out that I will not be deterred from posting my views about US gun policy by those who say "it's not your concern".
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th December 2012, 11:13 PM	#60
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws. You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either. Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

16th December 2012, 11:18 PM	#61
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by StankApe This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws. You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either. Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so. And, as I said, while it's within the terms of the MA to comment on US gun policy, I will.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

17th December 2012, 12:03 AM	#62
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,310	Originally Posted by StankApe This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws. You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either. Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

17th December 2012, 12:14 AM	#63
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959	..
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959	Last edited by Explorer; 17th December 2012 at 12:18 AM.

17th December 2012, 12:35 AM	#64
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,265	Originally Posted by StankApe This isn't that thread. and you have no vested strategic interest in the results of any US gun laws. You just seem to enjoy sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Just because I don't live in the U.S. doesn't mean that I don't have a vested interest in U.S. gun laws. 90% of my relatives live in the U.S. and are subject to the freedoms and dangers that result from the U.S. gun laws. They represent a reasonably full range of views from my in-laws who don't own guns and don't understand why anyone else would want to, to my uncle who has loaded handguns in just about every room in his house and wouldn't even think about leaving the house without a couple of handguns for personal protection. Originally Posted by StankApe Being smug and elitist about your opinion isn't going to help convince anyone either. Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so. For those of us who aren't from the U.S. (and thinking about my in-laws who have atypical views on gun ownership) we don't understand the U.S. relationship with guns. We don't properly understand the full range of reasons to own a gun and, given the way that gun control is treated locally, the need to have immediate access to a gun for personal protection. I personally would love to understand the mindset that drives the need for a gun for personal protection.

17th December 2012, 12:58 AM	#65
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin I don't see any direct relevance to the question, as the drunkard's walk would seem to argue that making random reactionary changes would lead to minimal change over time. This is not an argument for 'Something must be done'. Given that, I don't think it supports the poster's thesis very well. Again, it's kind of a derail, but I haven't ever argued so far as I recall that something must be done. All I meant to say was that there as quite a bit of variability in the gun ownership stats. Perhaps it's the collection method, perhaps it's that gun ownership is just wobbling about some stable point like 45%, or perhaps it's just wandering around the place more or less randomly as the culture shifts. If it's wandering about randomly and you are prepared to wait long enough it will eventually get low enough that the law can be changed.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936

17th December 2012, 12:59 AM	#66
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936	Originally Posted by StankApe Let the daddy country handle it's own business, your little nation can just sit in the balcony and watch. as long as we decide it's fit for you to do so. China?
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936

17th December 2012, 01:02 AM	#67
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by Delvo Ending something like that requires more than a change in culture. It also requires rather drastic and difficult legal action (either an amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling going against previous ones) and a way to enforce it. Cultural change can lead to legal change eventually, but enforcement will remain troublesome. Banning guns or even severely narrowing down the supply of people who are allowed to own them can only be enforced if you can find and confiscate the guns that are already here, including those in the possession of people who have done nothing else that would cause themselves and their property to be searched. This is along the lines of what I've been thinking about: The 4th Amendment would pretty much have to be suspended in it's entirety. The 5th Amendment would also be taking a beating. In addition HIPPA laws would have to undergo a serious reworking if you want to target mentally ill people and there are some 4th amendment issues there as well.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

17th December 2012, 02:11 AM	#68
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by lionking And, as I said, while it's within the terms of the MA to comment on US gun policy, I will. as I said in a PM, my comments were chosen carefully not to express my personal feelings about your country ,but to demonstrate the condescending manner in which your comments have sounded to me. It wasn't a slight on Australia as a people or a nation. But rather a purposeful comment meant to sound equally as smug and elitist as I feel some of the comments you have made in regards to our countries gun laws. sorry it took me a bit to pop back in here and comment on it, but I wanted to watch a movie.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

17th December 2012, 02:44 AM	#69
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	Originally Posted by shuttlt China? At the moment, yes. In twenty years time the daddy country will be India.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

17th December 2012, 02:56 AM	#70
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	No civillian needs a semi automatic weapon at all. That at least should be stopped dead.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685

17th December 2012, 03:47 AM	#71
crhkrebs Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Great White Northern Wasteland Posts: 195	Originally Posted by mikedenk Christ. What's the point of even having the things? I don't own my guns to shoot people, if that's what you're asking. Quote: This killer would have time to break in, make himself a sandwich out of your fridge, then calmly walk up and axe murder you while you're fumbling through your third or fourth obstacle. Is that the reason you own guns? Quote: Overly onerous regulations are just as intolerable as outright bans. I disagree. There are overly onerous regulations that everyone has to deal with when it comes to the responsible operation of motor vehicles. Hardly intolerable. It's a safety issue, not a civil rights issue.

17th December 2012, 04:10 AM	#72
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	There is no civil right in the USA to have a firearm. "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" Neither the perp or the Mom was part of a "well regulated" anything. Her ownership of these weapons was in no way "necessary to the security of a free state" and when the 2nd was written there was nowhere in existence a weapon like the AR-15 copy Bushmaster.
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

17th December 2012, 04:21 AM	#73
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	If you think that the Founders put the 2nd in place in order to help topple the government they'd just founded on blood and treasure you are very mistaken. These guys weren't stupid. The militia was needed because of the on-going British threat. Also guns in the hands of the people are not necessary to topple tyrants. The citizens of Tunisia and Egypt did it with a mass movement of people, not personal gun ownership. How many American tyrants have we toppled with our personal guns? Now juxtapose that with how many innocent people have lost their lives to gun violence. Your rights stop at the point where they infringe the rights of others. The 2nd gives you the right to keep a weapon upon joining a well regulated militia. We need to return to the bounds of that language IMHO...
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

17th December 2012, 07:14 AM	#74
elgarak Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: No matter where I go, there I am Posts: 1,859	Originally Posted by rikzilla There is no civil right in the USA to have a firearm. "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" Neither the perp or the Mom was part of a "well regulated" anything. Her ownership of these weapons was in no way "necessary to the security of a free state" and when the 2nd was written there was nowhere in existence a weapon like the AR-15 copy Bushmaster. I'm not a native English speaker, but I understand that the main part of the 2nd amendment is the second half, after the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The first part is simply an explanation and clarification why the authors think they needed this right. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".... you may notice that this doesn't make sense. It's not a complete sentence. The second half is. As far as I know, most people agree with my interpretation, including the US Supreme Court.

17th December 2012, 08:53 AM	#75
RenaissanceBiker Eats shoots and leaves. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,810	Originally Posted by lionking A silencer? Are you serious? You need a silencer so that when you are blowing someone away when defending your "castle", you won't be offending neighbours with the noise? Things are more broken than I thought. Silencers protect your hearing. I had to fire my .357 without earplugs once this year and it was painful. It was a mercy kill for a doe that another hunter shot through both back legs. ETA: If I have to fire one of my guns inside my house, I want my neighbors to know about it.
	__________________ "Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine "Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker Last edited by RenaissanceBiker; 17th December 2012 at 08:55 AM.