Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

Wrong. It was designed after the M14, which was also a select-fire rifle that could be full auto. Completely different than the Armalite M16. And it was a good example, because, yet again, the Mini-14 is not select fire...and entirely different.

Correct. M14. But the select fire definition is a military definition. Federal definitions of assault weapons do not mention select fire. Guns that accommodate a magazine are not designed for hunting or defense. They can be used for such, but one must confess the design lends itself toward assault. Not a bad thing, it just is. Throwing a wood stock on it makes it less intimidating, but still it is still capable of shooting more bullets than a hunting rifle wants.

 

Should they ban them? Different discussion. I don't really care, but I'd say the 2nd does support them. I just hate the bullshit claims comparing them to hunting rifles and defense arms.

Link to comment

DRIVEN. Background checks are done for drivers. Vehicles are very heavily regulated. A very strict set of parameters must be met to be street legal. Safety systems are required for new vehicles. Bumper heights are set. Fenders must cover tires. Nitrous is not allowed. Weight limits. Etc etc. it is a fine example actually of a very restricted/regulated industry that thrives and has gotten much safer as a result of laws.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Wrong. It was designed after the M14, which was also a select-fire rifle that could be full auto. Completely different than the Armalite M16. And it was a good example, because, yet again, the Mini-14 is not select fire...and entirely different.

 

So the M-1 Garand was clip loaded and the M-14 was magazine fed. Same basic tried and true design in both of them

 

uboxSMV.jpg

 

And yes, the Mini has it's lineage from both of these

 

1200px-Mini14GB.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment

If the community you live in needs guns to be healthy there is something seriously wrong.

 

 

 

Regulated means under control or supervised.

Militia means a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. It can also be a rebel force in opposition to the regular army.

 

This is probably why the words 'well regulated' were used. Also the right to bear arms is important as the militia isn't likely to supply the arms and the civilian populace was expected to grab the family rifle and show up armed and ready to go.

 

DRIVEN.... I'm not that far off from what everyone else wants. But as soon as you point out that the present system doesn't work the gun nut side gets all bent, digs their heels in and suddenly I'm denying second amendment rights. Seems to me the right for citizens to carry self protection would have been much farther down the amendment line while the protection of the state would have been much more important and closer to the first.... and I think it is. Arguably, it does say you can bear arms, and that's fine, but gun nuts never mention 'well regulated' yet is says that right there.

 

Did you miss the part about " The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ?

 

Everyone goes right after the Militia part and that is the wrong thing to focus on. That is the Government, and the right of the people is to protect us from it! 

Link to comment

No I didn't. I also didn't miss the part about the word militia, which are citizens ready to augment the standing army which maybe you missed in your rush to say "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (very much like what I also said about gun nut replies) But then I also said... "Also the right to bear arms is important as the militia isn't likely to supply the arms and the civilian populace was expected to grab the family rifle and show up armed and ready to go." Well the people are also the militia aren't they? 

 

So this amendment is much more aimed at having the ability to swell the army quickly when needed (something very important for a fledgling nation over two hundred years ago who just threw off the British yoke) by having the civilian population armed than with simply saying 'the population should be armed' which would not have used the term a 'well regulated militia'..

 

 

Carry on tomorrow, I have to go to bed....

Link to comment

52u20dB.png

 

 

To make my point super clear. You want to prevent violence and deaths? Gun control will not work, either criminals will get guns illegally or use a different weapon (bombs, trucks, etc...). 

 

To prevent this you need mental health control that is effective.

 

Gun control merely removes tools from sane law-abiding people to stop the insane criminals.

 

TL:DR; fuck you and your gun control

  • Like 8
Link to comment

Honestly, I'm exhausted by the gun rights argument. Especially when engaging with people who have very little experience and (sorry Mike) foreigners. Most people would not necessarily assume I'm a gun owner at first meeting. Maybe, maybe not. Apparently, from my observations in 'Cuz, I'm a gun nut. So rather than argue guns, please allow me to give some broader perspective.

How would it feel to be constantly told by bicyclists that we shouldn't be allowed to drive? "But we love our Datsuns and we aren't hurting anyone." Bicyclists say you can keep your Datsun but no one needs 6 cylinders...or dual carbs...or 5 speeds...or wide tires. Only the police and military can be trusted with those types of cars. Bicyclists make a bunch of noise and pass restrictive laws banning those features that really don't make the cars any more or less harmful. No more Zs or typically upgraded 510s because they look too fast and scary. Then some asshole who's lost his license for hit and run illegally drives a 620 into a park bench and kills someone. Instead of blaming the driver, the bicyclists make more noise. Now high capacity fuel tanks and large caliber displacements (you know, >1.5 liters) are banned. Oops! A criminal stole a 520 and runs over his wife who was fucking his boss. Bicyclists are certain that requiring all Datsun owners to have a background check and waiting period at the gas station will prevent this from ever happening again. Uh oh! A crazy homeless person breaks into a garage and steals a B210 and the voices tell him to drive into a bus stop. Obviously, the only solution is that Datsun owners relinquish their cars to the bicyclists. No more Datsuns is clearly the cure for crime, domestic abuse and mental illness. Because common sense dictates that bicyclists know what's best for drivers.

Yes I realize it's not a perfect comparison -- Because the constitution gives me specific rights to firearms but not to Datsuns.

 

I feel like I'm being talked down to like a kid who knows BS rhetoric when he hears it. Insulting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The cake analogy is missing a huge reality. If we consider the cake originating at the constitution, every milestone mentioned in that cartoon failed to depict a drastically enlarged and refrosted cake. Gun control legislation typically only attempts to restrict new additions to the broad category of guns/gun accessories. Industry continuously pushes those boundaries (as industry always does). And the legislation follows when deemed necessary/beneficial. The origional cake is all there. All the new tiers of cake are selectively removed.

 

Fucking face it. If given free license, people will find a way to abuse it. This is what we see here. Not saying we need to restrict more guns right now, but the laws that have been passed mostly work for me. I'd like to see bump stock manufacturers penalized for gross negligence though. Those kinds off assholes are a big part of why this fucking debate keeps coming to the surface.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

The cake analogy is missing a huge reality. If we consider the cake originating at the constitution, every milestone mentioned in that cartoon failed to depict a drastically enlarged and refrosted cake. Gun control legislation typically only attempts to restrict new additions to the broad category of guns/gun accessories. Industry continuously pushes those boundaries (as industry always does). And the legislation follows when deemed necessary/beneficial. The origional cake is all there. All the new tiers of cake are selectively removed.

 

Fucking face it. If given free license, people will find a way to abuse it. This is what we see here. Not saying we need to restrict more guns right now, but the laws that have been passed mostly work for me. I'd like to see bump stock manufacturers penalized for gross negligence though. Those kinds off assholes are a big part of why this fucking debate keeps coming to the surface.

 

That and the now weekly mass shootings with nut clusters using these boundary pushing products.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I feel like I'm being talked down to like a kid who knows BS rhetoric when he hears it. Insulting.

You're insulted? Wow. How is that BS rhetoric? All I tried to point out is that those who are opposed to guns are never satisfied with what they take. They punish the law abiding owners for the sins of criminals. The cake analogy was probably presented better than mt Datsun analogy. I guess I could have added illustrations but I didn't want it to be insulting.
  • Like 3
Link to comment

The cake analogy is missing a huge reality. If we consider the cake originating at the constitution, every milestone mentioned in that cartoon failed to depict a drastically enlarged and refrosted cake. Gun control legislation typically only attempts to restrict new additions to the broad category of guns/gun accessories. Industry continuously pushes those boundaries (as industry always does). And the legislation follows when deemed necessary/beneficial. The origional cake is all there. All the new tiers of cake are selectively removed.

 

Fucking face it. If given free license, people will find a way to abuse it. This is what we see here. Not saying we need to restrict more guns right now, but the laws that have been passed mostly work for me. I'd like to see bump stock manufacturers penalized for gross negligence though. Those kinds off assholes are a big part of why this fucking debate keeps coming to the surface.

 

Now this is very interesting. Like cars. New car comes out with higher ground clearance but rolls over too easily so it is banned. Then another has poor crash survivability so it is banned. Still another explodes when hit in the gas tank so it is banned. 

Link to comment

Are you promoting Prohibition 2.0 or saying because one horror is bigger we should ignore the other?

They are the same thing, but one is constantly getting media attention and your attention and the other is not. Personally, my family has been much more traumatized but alcohol than by guns. How come we're not doing background checks to buy alcohol? Limiting the number of shots people can have? Banning convicted DUI/abusers of obtaining alcohol? etc etc. Why do you brush off the fact that alcohol does more damage than guns?
  • Like 1
Link to comment

I feel like I'm being talked down to like a kid who knows BS rhetoric when he hears it. Insulting.

But Mike didn't write that.

 

 

 

The cake analogy is very fitting for what "gun control" does. No tr8r the cake does not get rebuilt. see the crumbs were wiped off of gun controls fat face back onto the plate when the "assault weapon" ban was allowed to expire. Other than that no gun control law has been reduced or overturned.

 

The bottom line is gun control is is called for when criminals break the law and it is thought that the only way to stop criminals is out right ban for all. I've said it before I will say it again, look a t Mexico, very hard to LEGALLY own a firearm yet it has some of the highest gun violence on the planet. Tell me again how more laws will stop anything?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.