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

[Andir]

Where Are You On The Political Compass?  « 1 2 3 ... 15 »  Pathos  223  1337   Today at 06:59:45 am
by Andir 

Cool.

Central Libertarian... about 2/3 of the way to the bottom.  I took it a while back and didn't keep the numbers.  (I think you were asking me?  The post is a little confusing.  Also, if there's a picture it's been filtered/censored by my Authoritarian workplace firewall.  )

[Shades]

Where Are You On The Political Compass?  « 1 2 3 ... 15 »  Pathos  223  1337   Today at 06:59:45 am
by Andir 

Cool.

Central Libertarian... about 2/3 of the way to the bottom.  I took it a while back and didn't keep the numbers.  (I think you were asking me?  The post is a little confusing.  Also, if there's a picture it's been filtered/censored by my Authoritarian workplace firewall.  )

He was drawing attention to the fact LEET people had viewed the thread.

[Andir]

He was drawing attention to the fact LEET people had viewed the thread.

Ah, now I see.

[Pathos]

Centre - Authoritarian
 0 (0%)

Huh, that's odd. The only one with 0 people.

[Forumsdwarf]

Haha, the old assault weapons debate.  Banning them does nothing for the gun control crowd, for reasons gun control people don't understand or they wouldn't be making it an issue, nor are civilian assault weapons particularly well-suited for home defense, either, for the same reasons:

Assault rifles were designed for combat.  Their improved lethality over battle rifles comes from their improved rate of fire.  They sacrifice stopping power to attain it.
SMG's go even further down that design path so as to provide faster reaction in close quarters.

Automatic weapons are illegal for civilians in the United States (with rare exceptions*).  Any talk of an "assault weapons ban" is a ban on weapons with full-auto capability already removed.  Bush's "lifting the assault weapons ban" meant allowing the sale of the weapons in their semi-automatic form, NOT allowing the sale of automatic weapons.  Those have been banned for over half a century and that isn't going to change.

In its civilian configuration the assault rifle is actually at a disadvantage compared to hunting rifles, battle rifles, and even shotguns and .45 caliber pistols because the assault rifle was optimized for rate of fire, not stopping power.  If automatic weapons are illegal your most effective option is stopping power, so your best weapon for self-defense is NOT an assault rifle.

Hunting rifles, battle rifles, and sniper rifles are almost interchangeable.  They all have the same types of very powerful ammo, long barrel lengths, and options for sights.  They all have exceptional stopping power, can penetrate body armor, are extremely accurate, and have extremely long range.  They're also ungainly, so they're almost never used in crimes, but when they are ("crazy guy on the clock tower") the results are truly awful.

The weapon most often used in crime is the Lorcin L-25 semiautomatic pistol.  It's inaccurate, poorly-made, and its stopping power is pathetic.  Criminals like it because it's cheap.


* There's a very rare and expensive license for legal possession of an automatic weapon.  Some vintage collector's items, like the water-cooled machine guns from WWI or hand-cranked Gatlings, don't require the automatic weapons license.  IANAL so don't go buying a Vickers Gun without checking the laws yourself first.

[Dwarf]

IANAL

You anal ?


What I don't get is why someone would need a freaking hunting, battle or whatever-rifle or shotgun when for simple defence a handgun is completely sufficient.

[Cheeetar]

IANAL

You anal ?


What I don't get is why someone would need a freaking hunting, battle or whatever-rifle or shotgun when for simple defence a handgun is completely sufficient.

I think the argument is that it isn't needed, but it sure is fun to have a shotgun/minigun/whatever.

[MrWiggles]

IANAL

You anal ?


What I don't get is why someone would need a freaking hunting, battle or whatever-rifle or shotgun when for simple defence a handgun is completely sufficient.

Well, thats kind of a matter of taste. There can be valid arguments that hand guns better for then rifles, but both do do the job functionality. It what you like more.

Is this about the Right to Bear Arms? Though its been a while since I've read on it but I recall my conclusion was that it was there to allow for armed rebellion against the government if it ever needed it. Home defense, and personal defense was just bonus.

[Aqizzar]

It was a lot more about defending towns against Indians and foreign deprivation, since after America and Britain signed a peace treaty, the Continental Army shrunk to something like 2000 guys.  The country needed militias, because the national government just wasn't able to maintain a standing border defense in 1789.  It was also a concession (to some degree) to the anti-Federalists who didn't want a national legislature of any kind, and wanted to enumerate as clearly as possible what it could and couldn't do.  And in the grand American political tradition, James Madison like many of the early Congressmen had drunk way too much of their own Kool-Aid when invoking the British garrison rounding up militia armories in the weeks prior to first real violence.

And lest it need be repeated again, as it must every time the 2nd Amendment is discussed, this was in an age when militias and governments alike had muskets, field cannon, horses, and nothing else.  Unless you seriously want to argue that independent citizen militias have a right to SAM launchers, it's long past time to stop pretending that "to allow for armed rebellion against the government if it ever needed it" is any kind of realistic excuse for anything.

[Andir]

IANAL

You anal ?


What I don't get is why someone would need a freaking hunting, battle or whatever-rifle or shotgun when for simple defence a handgun is completely sufficient.

Well, thats kind of a matter of taste. There can be valid arguments that hand guns better for then rifles, but both do do the job functionality. It what you like more.

Is this about the Right to Bear Arms? Though its been a while since I've read on it but I recall my conclusion was that it was there to allow for armed rebellion against the government if it ever needed it. Home defense, and personal defense was just bonus.

Correct.  That's the intent (per documents and arguments recorded at the same time), and it really says nothing about home or personal defense, only the defense of freedom.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --  Thomas Jefferson

But my argument wasn't about using assault rifles and tanks for home defense, it was the fact that this is our country and we allow the government to defend our rights from foreign affairs and state law, not to remove them, control them or what have you.  They were never given such power, however people will continue thinking that our government is something that it's not (it's not like every other government, past or present) and will continue to accept these stupid laws because of it.

_{and FYI, in case you didn't know.. IANAL = "I Am Not A Lawyer"}

[Earthquake Damage]

They were never given such power, however people will continue thinking that our government is something that it's not (it's not like every other government, past or present) and will continue to accept these stupid laws because of it.

Alternately, the government legitimately possesses that power precisely because most citizens accept it.

[Shades]

Alternately, the government legitimately possesses that power precisely because most citizens accept it.

More accurately most don't care or don't think it effects them/they can do anything. Most people don't vote

[Dwarf]

IANAL

You anal ?


What I don't get is why someone would need a freaking hunting, battle or whatever-rifle or shotgun when for simple defence a handgun is completely sufficient.

Well, thats kind of a matter of taste. There can be valid arguments that hand guns better for then rifles, but both do do the job functionality. It what you like more.

Is this about the Right to Bear Arms? Though its been a while since I've read on it but I recall my conclusion was that it was there to allow for armed rebellion against the government if it ever needed it. Home defense, and personal defense was just bonus.

Correct.  That's the intent (per documents and arguments recorded at the same time), and it really says nothing about home or personal defense, only the defense of freedom.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --  Thomas Jefferson

But my argument wasn't about using assault rifles and tanks for home defense, it was the fact that this is our country and we allow the government to defend our rights from foreign affairs and state law, not to remove them, control them or what have you.  They were never given such power, however people will continue thinking that our government is something that it's not (it's not like every other government, past or present) and will continue to accept these stupid laws because of it.

_{and FYI, in case you didn't know.. IANAL = "I Am Not A Lawyer"}

It is, to a certain degree, the duty of a country to protects its citizens, and to that goal, certain stuff must be abolished.

You make it sound as if removing any rights whatsoever endangers the freedom of the people etc. (Correct me if I'm wrong), but that is nonsense.
Rifles are not useful to anyone but hunters and only these who should have them, because, frankly, no one else has a bloody use for them (as stated a few words ago). If they are not useful, why should they be openly available? Hell, you can even buy sniper rifles on the internet.
It is easy for anyone to acquire such a weapon, and that is a risk.

[Earthquake Damage]

If [rifles] are not useful, why should they be openly available?

Collectors?  Hobbyists?  I suppose the latter category includes hunters, so I guess you've already covered that.

[Andir]

edit: my previous document was for infant mortality... leave it to the government to mislabel a link!

If [rifles] are not useful, why should they be openly available?

Collectors?  Hobbyists?  I suppose the latter category includes hunters, so I guess you've already covered that.

Obviously, he'd rather have a world where the government decides who has the right to own ______

Only taxi drivers need cars, obviously.  Everyone else just uses them for non-sense like shopping and sport racing (and that claims many lives each year.)  They can use bicycles, buses or taxis to get to work.  Also, think of the protection life savings on America's roads!  Without all those "common" people driving, there will be fewer accidents and death!  Sport racing also increases the injury cases, so in order to protect the people, we should outlaw car racing. We should probably also get rid of skateboarding, skiing, baseball (what if someone gets hit with a ball and is knocked unconscious?), football (so many injuries!), and most definitely flying, you know how many people are killed in plane related violence each year (I once saw someone get in a wreck because they were watching a plane fly over and not watching traffic!  Obviously a plane related accident.)  Alcohol... we should go back to the good old prohibition days... people can't get alcohol poisoning and have to be admitted to the emergency room to have their stomach pumped.  While we are at it, knifes.  Only a chef should be able to obtain these tools.  Everyone else can achieve the same effect by using a butter knife.  That will cut down on people cutting their fingers... 

After all it is the Government's "Duty" to protect us from such atrocities.  (Which is not true...)

But no... people single out guns because their intentional purpose was for war... when more people are killed in automobile accidents and health related causes each year compared to gun related violence:  http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html