Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Calhoun]

Nor is ANYONE qualified to make such a statement.  Because, like I said... as soon as that is in place, guns will be manufactured up to that point.  As you said, technology advances have made the assault rifles of yesteryear (shot and ball rifles) futile today.  This is ground you cannot tread because it's a living, moving target.

Er. No.
Not all guns will be manufactured up to that point.
There are already limitations, they just aren't very strict. As you said, your brother's AR-15 was stripped of Full Auto fire. Manufacturer's aren't going to stop making guns that exceed these limits. They sure as hell don't make most of their money from the civilian market anyway.

Not all of them, but let's say that there is a law stating that no guns can be produced that shoot over 50 rounds a minute.  Now manufacturers are going to create a gun that shoots no more than 50 rounds a minute, but maybe those rounds break apart mid flight to cause the most damage.  They could also begin more research into shot filled bullets... technology will outpace some arbitrary restrictions.

This is why you continue to refine the law. You can't just create a law and expect it to never change.

I can't think of the model right now, but there's a rifle (categorized by barrel length) that can be concealed and carried because the barrel was moved back inside the gun.  It looks just like a sub-machine gun, but only fires one round per trigger pull.  Someone created a classification, and a manufacturer worked around it.  That's what happens.

Special cases can exist, and this could be one of those.

How do you intend on keeping the dirt air tight long enough to kill it?  Maybe you want to trap them, put them in a glass jar and kill them that way?  It's far easier, cheaper, and environmentally friendly to put a bullet in them.

Fumigation is the most common method of dealing with groundhogs. Personally I've never had to deal with them. However, numerous relatives who live further north have. Fumigation worked just fine for them.

The fumigation that you are referring to requires a ton of chemicals and could most definitely harm creatures that were not your intended targets.

No actually, it doesn't. Perhaps you need to do a bit more research.

Invasion ALSO doesn't happen overnight.We'd know if they Chinese were about to launch an invasion. Especially not of a superpower by the next one.
Also again, The likelihood of your scenario, while less than the last. Is still extremely slim, perhaps 3 consecutive lottery wins.

It's good to plan for disaster. However, I don't walk around with a full-body rubber suit on because I know I could be struck by lighting. There is a limit. (That's also about a million times more likely then a Chinese invasion.

Perhaps you all missed where I put in parenthesis the word "arbitrary"... biological, explosive, and nuclear weapons also do not selectively only kill military as is exemplified by the whole middle east conflict and someone flying a plane into a building.  (I won't even get into the idea that there could have been someone on that plane who could have prevented that incident... because you are all trained to think of guns as "evil" and will likely find an excuse to justify your position.)

Guns, in any shape or form are not evil, bad, forsaken, or otherwise intentional weapons of destruction.  They may have been designed for purposes of war, but so did Radar, X-Rays, rubber, Teflon...heck, even knifes and those purposes do not extend to items created from such technology.

Using Biological or nuclear warfare is a whole different can of worms. You said Invasion. I gave you the response to that scenario. Terrorist attacks are also a whole seperate thing. Bombings are also different, there are international laws that dictate how you can bomb. You can't just carpet-bomb things anymore. If WHATEVER nation decided to do that, then they would be in a lot of trouble with the international community. Conflict in the middle east is radically different than conflict in american cities would be.

I never said that guns were evil, bad, or forsaken. That said they ARE designed to kill. They are dangerous things, and need to be treated as such.

Honestly, I'd just rather we all stop arguing about these extremely unlikely scenarios.

As long as you understand that regulation will always be "worked around" and loop-holed to high heavens.  Also, that gun's sole purpose in life (although by design) is not the extermination of man and placing undue restrictions on one such item is ridiculous.  "Sometimes you just want to blow shit up."

Blowing shit up doesn't even involve guns. It involves explosives. Which is something ENTIRELY different.

[Haspen]

One angry country that spends more on its military than the next fifteen countries combined, that's what.

Heh, another 'America is Superior' post. I'm so amused by those x3

Anyway, the thread is already too derailed.

[Nilocy]

Its a good basis for business.

Killing is America's business, and business is good

[Haspen]

Killing is America's business, and business is good

Oh yes, you proved that nicely during WWII

ANYWAY! Make another thread for such discussions, please. YES YOU WHO is now writing a text-block of reply!

[Aqizzar]

One angry country that spends more on its military than the next fifteen countries combined, that's what.

Heh, another 'America is Superior' post. I'm so amused by those x3

Hey I'm just stating a fact.  If you checked my record, you'd know I've never claimed this was a good thing.

[RedKing]

RedKing:

Part 1, additional E:

Or cut off the 'Mighty and Glorious' US from it's oil reserves around the world. That wouldn't be so difficult. Especially that those oil reserves are mainly not in US ground.

The US has it's own oil... some of it's not as easy to get to though.  It would be plenty to support us while the prices go up and it's replaced with alternatives.  It may even be good for us, IMHO.

Yes, but big-publicity environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club flip whenever drilling is mentioned. I heard something on the radio a while back that Montana has more oil than all of Saudi Arabia. The thing is that the oil is on national reserves, so any drilling there would likely cause a nationwide tantrum spiral.

Negative. The Bakken Shale has maybe, if you believe the most optimistic estimates, about half the reserves of Saudi Arabia. And most of it would be considerably more costly and problematic to extract because it's trapped in shale rock. People only started to get interested when crude was around $100/barrel. (Or when it was politically advantageous to claim that there's all this wonderful oil in our own backyard, if only we'd let the nice multinational conglomerates drill...). The interesting bit is that the bulk of this formation is actually in Canada. Only a tiny portion is in Montana and somewhat larger chunk in North Dakota. And IIRC, the part in Montana is on the Fort Peck Sioux reservation. Which means technically they would be earning the rents on the mineral rights. (Which the US Government, in its infinite benevolence, has "managed" for the tribes for the last hundred+ years).


But yeah...thread totally derailed. Back to fussing about political orientations and the silliness thereof.
 

[Haspen]

One angry country that spends more on its military than the next fifteen countries combined, that's what.

Heh, another 'America is Superior' post. I'm so amused by those x3

Hey I'm just stating a fact.  If you checked my record, you'd know I've never claimed this was a good thing.

Nah, it's okay, and forgive my retardness if you felt offended.

My first meetings with US people were full of 'russia should die lol' 'if not us you would be nazi!!1' 'we bombed japan because they were bad and now they make games for us lol', and from here I gained my... general negative feelings toward US

On other hand, I should have picked the forums more carefully.

[Calhoun]

One angry country that spends more on its military than the next fifteen countries combined, that's what.

Heh, another 'America is Superior' post. I'm so amused by those x3

Hey I'm just stating a fact.  If you checked my record, you'd know I've never claimed this was a good thing.

Nah, it's okay, and forgive my retardness if you felt offended.

My first meetings with US people were full of 'russia should die lol' 'if not us you would be nazi!!1' 'we bombed japan because they were bad and now they make games for us lol', and from here I gained my... general negative feelings toward US

On other hand, I should have picked the forums more carefully.

Out of Curiosity, What forum were these idiots on?

[Haspen]

Out of Curiosity, What forum were these idiots on?

Twas long ago, like 3-4 years, when I was discovering both internet and foreign (english) websites. I forgot the names.

But the 'mental image' remained strong...

[Andir]

Not all of them, but let's say that there is a law stating that no guns can be produced that shoot over 50 rounds a minute.  Now manufacturers are going to create a gun that shoots no more than 50 rounds a minute, but maybe those rounds break apart mid flight to cause the most damage.  They could also begin more research into shot filled bullets... technology will outpace some arbitrary restrictions.

This is why you continue to refine the law. You can't just create a law and expect it to never change.

Grandfathering is still relevant.  My brother has many guns that you couldn't buy today, but because he purchased them pre-regulation he can't sell them without modification, but he can still own them, and pass them on in death.  The "problem" you have with gun ownership doesn't go away overnight.

No actually, it doesn't. Perhaps you need to do a bit more research.

Oh, I do know of this fumigation you speak of.  If usually involves days of work (in checking holes/waiting), determining if the rodent is in it's various lengths of burrow, being able to identify all entrances to a burrow(s) (mostly in one's yard and not in a 45+ acre field), not 100% fail safe, not exactly environmentally friendly (carbon monoxide generation... being a pollutant), flammable (as sulfur is usually used to create the carbon monoxide...) and not always legal ... read the label, check local laws on chemical use.  Since we are talking about acres of land here... that involves a ton of chemicals for every hole involved... and again with the checking steps.

Shooting is about 45 (as a rough estimate...) times easier and far more reliable and maybe also not always legal ... check local laws.  It's also fewer steps.  It's also far less dangerous than what my grandfather used to do with dynamite and shocking them to death... but that's another topic.

I never said that guns were evil, bad, or forsaken. That said they ARE designed to kill. They are dangerous things, and need to be treated as such.

So instead of educated and legal ownership, you prefer to live by the motto that only outlaws will have access to such devices?

Blowing shit up doesn't even involve guns. It involves explosives. Which is something ENTIRELY different.

Way to be literal...

Guns can be very fun, very entertaining, and very sporting.  What I'm saying is that banning, regulating, controlling, etc. can be a very slippery slope.  You simply can't say, X is dangerous because it kills people so it should be banned.

[Andir]

Out of Curiosity, What forum were these idiots on?

Twas long ago, like 3-4 years, when I was discovering both internet and foreign (english) websites. I forgot the names.

But the 'mental image' remained strong...

Such is the mentality of many Americans toward Muslins thanks to recent events... and these things take time to resolve.  Hell, look at racism for an example.

[Calhoun]

Grandfathering is still relevant.  My brother has many guns that you couldn't buy today, but because he purchased them pre-regulation he can't sell them without modification, but he can still own them, and pass them on in death.  The "problem" you have with gun ownership doesn't go away overnight.

Nothing's Perfect, Grandfathering may still be relevant, and that's fine by me, but it does stop more guns getting into the wrong hands.

I never said that guns were evil, bad, or forsaken. That said they ARE designed to kill. They are dangerous things, and need to be treated as such.

So instead of educated and legal ownership, you prefer to live by the motto that only outlaws will have access to such devices?

I never said that. Infact, BECAUSE they are dangerous people need to be educated. However, assault rifles and SMG's still shouldn't be in civilian hands. AT THE VERY LEAST, they should require a lengthy educational course and a special license.

Way to be literal...

Guns can be very fun, very entertaining, and very sporting.  What I'm saying is that banning, regulating, controlling, etc. can be a very slippery slope.  You simply can't say, X is dangerous because it kills people so it should be banned.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

Oh, I do know of this fumigation you speak of.  If usually involves days of work (in checking holes/waiting), determining if the rodent is in it's various lengths of burrow, being able to identify all entrances to a burrow(s) (mostly in one's yard and not in a 45+ acre field), not 100% fail safe, not exactly environmentally friendly (carbon monoxide generation... being a pollutant), flammable (as sulfur is usually used to create the carbon monoxide...) and not always legal ... read the label, check local laws on chemical use.  Since we are talking about acres of land here... that involves a ton of chemicals for every hole involved... and again with the checking steps.

Shooting is about 45 (as a rough estimate...) times easier and far more reliable and maybe also not always legal ... check local laws.  It's also fewer steps.  It's also far less dangerous than what my grandfather used to do with dynamite and shocking them to death... but that's another topic.

I wasn't speaking of large-scale fumigation, and you hadn't specified. That said, on a larger scale, there are probably more efficient methods then fumigation or shooting them.

[Andir]

Nothing's Perfect, Grandfathering may still be relevant, and that's fine by me, but it does stop more guns getting into the wrong hands.

How exactly does it stop someone from obtaining said illegal weapons for doing illegal deeds?

However, assault rifles and SMG's still shouldn't be in civilian hands. AT THE VERY LEAST, they should require a lengthy educational course and a special license.

... yet said training could be attended by civilians (as it was when I got my concealed carry permit) allowing me, a civilian, the ability to carry my pistol (concealed) into any establishment that doesn't forbid them or it is legally forbidden (Class D alcohol establishments, courts and public buildings, owner posted request, etc.)

And yes, if there was a class that permitted me to open carry or own an assault rifle on a regular basis, I'd take it for the simple fact that I can... I consider it a vote for my support of the Second Amendment... but that's not going to happen because politicians would never put that into law.  They are perfectly happy with the gray fog that is gun possession and transport in America.  Only those dedicated to researching the laws will ever do it and everyone else is too scared (of the law/compliance), or stupid which only adds to the ignorance you complain about (ie: stray bullets.)

Guns can be very fun, very entertaining, and very sporting.  What I'm saying is that banning, regulating, controlling, etc. can be a very slippery slope.  You simply can't say, X is dangerous because it kills people so it should be banned.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

No, not really.  You stated yourself that anything that can "spray bullets" should be illegal for civilians to own.  (That implies illegal to fire on their own land for whatever purpose, be it fun or not.)

I wasn't speaking of large-scale fumigation, and you hadn't specified. That said, on a larger scale, there are probably more efficient methods then fumigation or shooting them.

I figured the 150 yard shot, talking of fields... I'm not talking about someone's yard here...  We aren't target shooting in Suburban Chicago!  The old adage of goose and gander isn't valid here.  We have many acres to practice safe shooting and enjoyment and you'd have us give up that right because of some idiot in South Central L.A.?

And no, there's no "safe large scale" method for getting rid of them besides total dangerous chemical genocide.  There's no way we will ever get rid of them all by shooting, chemical, or other means.  They are pests and rodents and very far from protected as far as species are concerned.

[Calhoun]

Nothing's Perfect, Grandfathering may still be relevant, and that's fine by me, but it does stop more guns getting into the wrong hands.

How exactly does it stop someone from obtaining said illegal weapons for doing illegal deeds?

Not all guns used in crime are purchased illegaly. Most are stolen from an owner or from a store. If they are no longer able to sell/own these weapons, they can't be stolen. Illegal purchase of Illegal guns only happens with large oragnized crime groups. Which is very different.

However, assault rifles and SMG's still shouldn't be in civilian hands. AT THE VERY LEAST, they should require a lengthy educational course and a special license.

... yet said training could be attended by civilians (as it was when I got my concealed carry permit) allowing me, a civilian, the ability to carry my pistol (concealed) into any establishment that doesn't forbid them or it is legally forbidden (Class D alcohol establishments, courts and public buildings, owner posted request, etc.)

And yes, if there was a class that permitted me to open carry or own an assault rifle on a regular basis, I'd take it for the simple fact that I can... I consider it a vote for my support of the Second Amendment... but that's not going to happen because politicians would never put that into law.  They are perfectly happy with the gray fog that is gun possession and transport in America.  Only those dedicated to researching the laws will ever do it and everyone else is too scared (of the law/compliance), or stupid which only adds to the ignorance you complain about (ie: stray bullets.)

Having people casually open carry assault rifles is a terrible idea. It would make it easy for anyone to go to a location and just open fire. There may be people who can also deal with him on the spot, but it only takes a second to pull the trigger, it's going to take a few more for those around to react.

Also, Thanks. I love being called stupid. I've been nothing but respectful.

Guns can be very fun, very entertaining, and very sporting.  What I'm saying is that banning, regulating, controlling, etc. can be a very slippery slope.  You simply can't say, X is dangerous because it kills people so it should be banned.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

No, not really.  You stated yourself that anything that can "spray bullets" should be illegal for civilians to own.  (That implies illegal to fire on their own land for whatever purpose, be it fun or not.)

I said that assault rifles and SMG's should be illegal for civilians to own. You made a general statement based off my specific statment, which would make it sound like think firecrackers should be banned.

I wasn't speaking of large-scale fumigation, and you hadn't specified. That said, on a larger scale, there are probably more efficient methods then fumigation or shooting them.

I figured the 150 yard shot, talking of fields... I'm not talking about someone's yard here...  We aren't target shooting in Suburban Chicago!  The old adage of goose and gander isn't valid here.  We have many acres to practice safe shooting and enjoyment and you'd have us give up that right because of some idiot in South Central L.A.?

And no, there's no "safe large scale" method for getting rid of them besides total dangerous chemical genocide.  There's no way we will ever get rid of them all by shooting, chemical, or other means.  They are pests and rodents and very far from protected as far as species are concerned.

You may not be able to get rid of them on a large scale easily, but prevention shouldn't be that hard. Wire fence a few feet underground as well as above ground.

[Andir]

Not all guns used in crime are purchased illegaly. Most are stolen from an owner or from a store. If they are no longer able to sell/own these weapons, they can't be stolen. Illegal purchase of Illegal guns only happens with large oragnized crime groups. Which is very different.

Stealing ... last time I checked... is illegal, which is covered by my statement.  Grandfathered weaponry is not instantly removed from Earth when a law is passed, nor is it instantly more secure from theft.

Also, Thanks. I love being called stupid. I've been nothing but respectful.

You implied that, I said that the people that were shooting up houses with automatic weapons were stupid...

No, not really.  You stated yourself that anything that can "spray bullets" should be illegal for civilians to own.  (That implies illegal to fire on their own land for whatever purpose, be it fun or not.)

I said that assault rifles and SMG's should be illegal for civilians to own. You made a general statement based off my specific statment, which would make it sound like think firecrackers should be banned.

And I said you would have to define what constitutes an assault rifle (and SMG by relation.)  But my point was that not all guns are used to kill people and there is a relevant use for them in recreation, even if you disagree.  There are people who can and do practice safe gun handling and you'd like to ban their existence from everyone because of a few stupid people and stray bullets.

I wasn't speaking of large-scale fumigation, and you hadn't specified. That said, on a larger scale, there are probably more efficient methods then fumigation or shooting them.

I figured the 150 yard shot, talking of fields... I'm not talking about someone's yard here...  We aren't target shooting in Suburban Chicago!  The old adage of goose and gander isn't valid here.  We have many acres to practice safe shooting and enjoyment and you'd have us give up that right because of some idiot in South Central L.A.?

And no, there's no "safe large scale" method for getting rid of them besides total dangerous chemical genocide.  There's no way we will ever get rid of them all by shooting, chemical, or other means.  They are pests and rodents and very far from protected as far as species are concerned.

You may not be able to get rid of them on a large scale easily, but prevention shouldn't be that hard. Wire fence a few feet underground as well as above ground.

... surrounding the entire field?  Maybe we should go back to that economical/efficient aspect again.

Edit:  Woohoo!  You've gotten better at quote debate (15).