Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #619 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
before any more **** is flipped, i have a statement.

the government won't ban guns. the most they will to is ban semi-autos, the least they will do is put a higher tax on bullets. IT'S ALL GOING TO BE OKAY!
User avatar #731 to #619 - xjiicx (01/18/2013) [-]
<Soooo many purple lines... v
User avatar #690 to #619 - billysmall (01/18/2013) [-]
Semi autos are like 90 percent of all guns offered for civilian use..
A paintball gun is semi auto.
#760 to #690 - relentlesspoop (01/18/2013) [-]
and that's why they call them markers.
User avatar #793 to #760 - billysmall (01/18/2013) [-]
Next year

"Paintball assault rifles now banned"
User avatar #748 to #690 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i am drawing the broadest parameter i can.
User avatar #786 to #748 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
So... are you being sarcastic?
User avatar #803 to #786 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
it is like poking a bear with a stick.
User avatar #802 to #786 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
why yes, yes i am.

i knew what semi-auto meant in it's entirety, i just love to toy with people. do you hate me?
User avatar #806 to #802 - liquidz (01/19/2013) [-]
Hate, no. I just wish you put a hint before that you were kidding or being sarcastic as too many people I see are seriously taking that stance to ban nearly everything. With NY's gun law that was just passed as a prime example of how it can be.

Written so poorly even their police now are not exempt from it. Good luck to them trying to find 7 round mags for their pistols.
User avatar #642 to #619 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
a semi auto gun, is a revolver..... although i think if the gov tried to ban that many guns some **** would go down
User avatar #746 to #642 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
CORRECT! which is why it a maximum.

on a scale of one to ten i posted a -1 and a 15.
User avatar #649 to #642 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
It will go down. Semi autos include many hunting rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and just about the majority of guns on the market.

Assault rifles have been banned since the 80's, a citizen has to jump through alot of hoops to own a fully automatic, on top of paying a high tax, wait period, and yearly fees for owning it.

What is called an assault rifle by the news is just a semi auto that looks like the military versions.
User avatar #654 to #649 - datassman ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Meh. I prefer pump and lever-actions anyways.
User avatar #669 to #654 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Those are more fun to use in my opinion. But the reality of having to deal with multiple attackers, you can get overwhelmed unless you train constantly with them. Even then you are giving up a bit of time and invite human error into the mix.

Short stroking, injuries, bad positioning, etc. What happens when you have to operate with one arm because you are shot?
User avatar #675 to #669 - datassman ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Yeah I suppose. I'm more precise with manual cycling though so for distance I'd choose one of them.
User avatar #683 to #675 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm kinda mixed on the max distance benefits of a bolt action vs semi.

The performance difference I have seen is so small, but when out a a mile or so it might matter more. I never had access to a range that big to know first hand.
User avatar #691 to #683 - datassman ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Honestly I'd always choose a lever action. They're an easy motion, reliable, and I find it easy to keep aim with them. They're just a bitch to reload. I dunno what it is, I can't use semi-autos. I expect some kind of tactile confirmation that another round's chambered.
User avatar #634 to #619 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Banning semi-autos is banning almost all guns.

You do know what the reason for the 2nd amendment is for right?

Not for hunting, but for the preservation of your life, liberties, and those who would take them from you. That includes criminals and the government.

Ask yourself, how many rights will you let the government take from you before you have had enough. SOPA and PIPA almost passed... NDAA is in place, armed drones are approved for flight over our country. Your privacy no longer exists in any shape or form now. Your doctor has to tell the government anything and everything wrong with you now.

Where is your line in the sand?
User avatar #744 to #634 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
just don't worry so much about it, if the legislation falls flat it can be repealed. as for rights? the constitution and bill of rights can change, it is the beauty of the system.
User avatar #753 to #744 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Our government has a tendancy to not repeal laws. It's only happened a few times, and that really was only because it benefited them.

Prohibition on alcohol, government officials needed their drinks so bad they repealed it.

Further, to take away the right to protect yourself, even if you ignore the real use to keep the government at bay, it's a fundamental right. Look what happened in England, they can't even defend themselves in hand to hand combat against an attacker without facing jail time, fines, and more.
User avatar #768 to #753 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i never said scrap the 2nd amendment. don't put words in my mouth.

i think something should be done, but based off my scale do you at all know where i stand?
User avatar #782 to #768 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Just making sure it was clear.

Where do you stand? I would like to know either way.
User avatar #800 to #782 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
i am standing where a large portion of Americans are. admitting there is a problem and coming up with plans to fix it. we could argue all day on what "fix it" means, but in the end what matters is that something is actually done. if that means better security in schools, so be it, if it means steeper penalties and better background checks, fine. if it means banning certain weapons, sure. the point is that if nothing is done this stuff will keep happening and i think it is safe to assume that more dead civilians is a bad thing.

we live in a rather violent and complex time. truth is there is no easy fix and there may need to be some experiments done to see which ideas should be used and which should be scraped. as of now, pretty much anything and everything is on the table in some form and regardless of what the president thinks, congress decides what gets added and cut out.

does this clarify?
User avatar #804 to #800 - liquidz (01/19/2013) [-]
It does some. I want something implemented that will actually do something though.

I do not think a weapons ban will fix anything at all. Neither will magazine restrictions. Sandy Hook the rifle was'nt even used it was found in the trunk of the car. Aurora the majority of the wounds were caused by a shotgun and not the AR which had jammed. In Oregon the shooter stopped immediately when he encountered armed citizen resistance, and turned the gun on himself.

I approve of better background checks, and improvements to our horribly unsecure schools. Most schools don't even lock their doors when class start, let alone check who is entering before they even get into the building. Once in that's it.

Taking something away from me, because a few misuse it does not justify taking it away. Finding out why those few misused it and how to layer security to make sure that doesn't happen. That is the real fix.

The other part of the question, which I was wanting to hear but I did not make clear.
Where do you draw the line on what the government takes from you? Which rights?

I use the 2nd as the right to defend myself from whatever may present itself as a threat to myself, family, property, and the rest of my rights (free speech, privacy, etc) . Taking that away from me or other citizens leaves us with no way to secure those rights and liberties. I see people chipping away at the 2nd, wanting to get it down until there is nothing left. 30rd mags limited to 10rds, then 5rds... and keep on going. More features not being allowed, that do nothing to make the weapon more "deadly", but increase my functional use of the gun.

When folks say they won't do that, look at what they did with the NY law, making detachable mags, and hand guards an "assault weapon" feature. Effectively banning all guns. Forcing you to register them, which leads to confiscation down the road.
User avatar #807 to #804 - dafiltafish (01/20/2013) [-]
there, now you don't sound like a gun-toting lunatic anymore.
User avatar #808 to #807 - liquidz (01/21/2013) [-]
The majority of gun owners have the same stance as me, yet the media and other people keep pushing for bans on our weapons.

We know they won't do anything. We want you to know they won't do anything. But we get written off before we can say anything, because the media wants everyone to think we wake up and shoot our guns wildly into the air every morning, before, during and after breakfast.
User avatar #646 to #634 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
The 2nd amendment actually uses the words "well regulated."

Also, AR-15s aren't for protecting yourself, they're for mass killing.
User avatar #722 to #646 - phonerstonerboner (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually AR-15's use a .225 projectile (Civilian version of the NATO round) which has been banned in 10 states for being too under-powered to make a clean kill while hunting.

Quiz: what's the definition of "Assult weapon?"
User avatar #680 to #646 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
..Uh, no they're not. The whole purpose of the Second is to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government. And don't even try pulling the whole "hurr civvies can't defend themselves from duh military durr" ******** . History says otherwise.
User avatar #688 to #680 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Protecting yourself from government does not mean picking the heads off politicians with a firearm.
User avatar #693 to #688 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
..Political assassinations doesn't equal defense. If gun grabbers kick down your door, demanding you to hand over your guns, that's defense.
User avatar #694 to #693 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
But no one is doing that.
User avatar #711 to #694 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Feinstein has said in the past that she wants to ban all firearms.

It makes clear what the agenda is, they know they can't do it outright so they will do it one piece at a time. Death by 1000 cuts.

Remember that registration in the past has ALWAYS lead to confiscation.
User avatar #699 to #694 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
Yet. Nobody is doing that yet, because firearms aren't being confiscated yet. If it does happen, the nation will be in an uproar. What happened when the British attempted to confiscate firearms from the colonists, imposed high taxes, and established tyrannical rule? A revolution. History can repeat itself.
User avatar #702 to #699 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Let me rephrase that: No one is trying to pass laws to do that.
User avatar #727 to #702 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
NY's new law does not allow citizens to own more than 2 guns. They must either be sold or turned in.

They went through and banned essentially all guns there by classifying an assault weapon as anything having one trait they do not approve of. Including the following: having a removable magazine, hand guard, muzzle break, Forward grips, hand grip, and more.

They want to ban ALL guns, not just a few. You have to ask yourself why they want to do that. Even more ironic when they get to say they can carry their person guns where they want, but we can't.

Criminals don't give a damn, they will steal guns and have as large mags as they want. They will go out in a blaze of glory. Even if they get their way and ban everything, the criminals will switch to other weapons, or make explosives, or worse.

They are just disarming honest civilians.
User avatar #735 to #727 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
It's lawmakers overreacting to a tragedy. It happens constantly, and it always blows over.
User avatar #750 to #735 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
What happens when they actually get something through?

Why not demand they be more accountable to this over-reaction? When do we say stop exploiting children to push agendas?

If they are over-reacting, why do they go out of the way to make sure they can have them and we can't?

Is it okay for someone to be allowed to have protection just because they have more money or status than us?
User avatar #762 to #750 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
I would love to continue this debate, but Katawa Shoujo is more important than politics. Good day, sir.
User avatar #781 to #764 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Then you can wait an eternity!
User avatar #738 to #713 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
It's ironic how politicians try to create new laws and support new laws even though they go against the Constitution, therefore they're illegal. But even then, she didn't know how to properly handle a weapon? She even had a CC permit..
User avatar #684 to #680 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
That and our issues with Iraq, and those terrorists show their crude methods give even our highly trained soldiers hell.

People kinda forget about that when they talk about armed civies
User avatar #664 to #646 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually it lists several things:

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.

A well regulated militia may own guns, the people may own guns, and further and this is key... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

An Ar15 or any other gun is used for defense for any number of reasons. Just admit you have the issue with the number of rounds. Which the case is that what about multiple attackers? We have gangs doing what they want now with little to no press about it. What about the government? When will you say they have taken away too many of your rights and want to fight back? 30rds per mag won't cut it.

But fine... ban the 30rd mags... make it 10... It only takes a second to put another one in. Which accomplishes nothing but a small delay for a determined killer.
User avatar #686 to #664 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
The number of rounds doesn't matter to me. Let me put it this way for you:

If someone wants to own a handgun for home protection, fine.
If someone wants to have a rifle for hunting, that's okay too.
But an AR-15 isn't for hunting game, it's for hunting people.
I'm not saying all, or even any, guns should be banned, but I do think they should be better regulated, and with some restrictions, as to prevent another James Holmes or Adam Lanza.

And now onto your other statements: None of our constitutional rights have been taken away. Not by Obama, and not by Congress. SOPA and PIPA were stupid, but those were caused by a couple of wingnut congressmen who thought they could do whatever the **** they wanted (i.e. Lamar Smith). The fact that anyone gave people like him the time of day is scary, but that's over and done with now.

The NDAA has been passed in multiple versions in every year since '07. It mostly has to do with defense budget. The one that was passed for 2012 everyone flipped a **** over because they just believed what people told them. The NDAA 2012 does not let any officer barge into your house and detain you without due process, it allows indefinite detention for proven supporters of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban.

And finally, no law has ever been passed to stand in the way of doctor-patient confidentiality. Subpoenas/warrants are a different story, but that's for police investigations.

I question where you got these insane theories.
User avatar #796 to #686 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
People use ARs to hunt as well. It's always good to have the ability to place a quick follow-up shot.

User avatar #758 to #686 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
You sound like you approve of guns and being able to defend yourself.

But I seriously am asking what do you see that makes an AR only effective for killing people?

Further, assuming your stance, what says that handguns aren't banned next because they are only for killing people? The rounds not being effective enough for killing deer, or other game?
User avatar #708 to #686 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Correct it is the 2012 version of the NDAA people have an issue with. Read it a bit more carefully, as it does not clearly define supporters, and it does not list specific groups. The only thing close it does it say the supporters of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. If they want to group you into that set they can, you are whisked off and are not entitled to a trial.

You have no option to prove that you aren't affiliated with them.

Sure PIPA and SOPA were introduced by idiots, but it happen not once but twice. Then they tried it a third time ( I am forgetting the name of that bill at this time). PIPA and SOPA only failed to pass because corporations would have had to pay too much, so they pushed against it. Otherwise they would have went through. All 3 are direct attacks on your ability to have free speech by censoring the internet.

The doctor-patient confidentiality is broken as of the other day, with the 23 executive orders Obama put out. Allowing doctors to ask you if you own guns, report back to authorities if they think you are unfit, and introduces mental health checks (which have to be provided by doctors to the authorities) . They are far more reaching than they sound, even one says groups of people determined by the attorney general will not be allowed to own guns.

Further, what the invasion of your privacy? The NSA now reads ALL messages posted or sent through the internet, including email, and phone communications. What about the drones allowed to check on you, and your property 24/7?

What about an AR-15 makes it different than any other gun for "hunting people". All guns are designed to kill, be it animals or humans. Further if you refer to the round it uses they come in a variety of calibers. AR-15's are in .22LR, .223, 7.62x39, 308 and many more. 308 being often considered a hunting round. Nothing about an AR makes it more effective at killing a person than a hunting rifle. If you see something about it I am missing please do inform me.
#759 to #708 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
Magazine size makes it ideal for hunting people...Some Places in this world you can find humans in huge quantities, you would want a nice rifle with great precision, Easy handling,easy concealable, good range but if you are hunting large quantities of humans in their natural habitats, you must have magazines with 30 bullets in them.. You would be able to kill a few before the crowd scatters..when the crowd scatters, you must go to a more traditional hunting style. If you are going to use a traditional hunting rifle, which is not recommendable, you are going to be caught up reloading guns manually, which will make it much easier for Humans to recognize the treat and minimalize casualties within own ranks, due to their nature instinct of quick escape after first sensing danger. It is right that you can go hunt ordinary animals with a AR15, but its very unsportsmanlike, and here is an ordinary hunting rifle recommendable also because its more precise and classy. Hope that this guide wrote by a guy who never have held or have been near a gun helps..and for the butthurt people *No i have no experience neither am i planning to kill either humans or animals*
User avatar #763 to #759 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
I recommend you go to a range, shoot some real guns, talk with some real gun owners.
Guns do not work like you see in the movies.

Further if someone tries to "hunt" groups of humans, the hunter might find himself surprised when the hunted pull out their own guns and shoot him dead.

No longer can he focus on his prey, but must deal with this new predator that is determined to defend the herd. The herd then has more time to escape, and the hunter will find himself unable to continue his "sport".
#774 to #763 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
you definetly got a point, but you miss mine..Ar15 is just a more efficient-faster killer and that makes it better for "hunting people" . Ordinary hunting rifles is for long range kills on animals, you wouldnt have chance to go near in the first place.
User avatar #785 to #774 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Remember an AR-15 is a semi-auto weapon. Which means each time you pull the trigger it shoots once. Fully auto weapons have been banned since the 1980's and to be allowed to have one you must pay hefty taxes and get all sorts of permission from local and federal government.

Functionality difference between a hunting rifle and an AR comes down to ergonomics and reliability.
User avatar #783 to #774 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
The range capabilities for most hunting rifles and an AR are the same. It's all based on the round more than the gun.

An AR can take a "hunting" rifle scope, and a red dot could be mounted to a hunting rifle.

The real difference is ergonomics and reliability.
User avatar #625 to #619 - ixcarnifexxi (01/18/2013) [-]
Yes, let's ban the guns that require more skill and precision to use instead of the spray-and-pray trigger happy ones.
User avatar #751 to #625 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i did not say that. it is a likely assumption that gun licensing will become tougher and bullets costlier. it is a compromised deal and it will be dealt with accordingly.
User avatar #784 to #751 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Have you purchased a gun before? Let alone what the media calls an "assault weapon". It's not as easy as they make it out to be.

Not to mention all the restrictions put in place by the already existing 2000+ gun laws we have.

Making bullets more expensive does nothing except entitle the rich to own guns. The same people that want these restrictions and weapons bans because they can hire their own security teams or pay the fines for what is a minor inconvenience to them.

Sounds like a good way to make social classes even more uneven.
User avatar #801 to #784 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
i understand what you want, but i am telling you it just won't happen.

i am merely speculating, as is the majority of people who have posted on this. sure throw all the statistics you want into it, but it won't change congress' mind(s). if you wish to take action write to your congressman.
User avatar #805 to #801 - liquidz (01/19/2013) [-]
I have been writing them, and I hope informing more of the public will help as well.

Most people don't know what an actual assault weapon is, or that they are already banned.

They don't know we have an absurd number of gun laws that vary from city to city or county to county. In some cases even having a carry permit in a state, you go to a city you have to pull over and unload/secure your weapon in the trunk before going through. Getting stopped with your gun could mean a felony charge if you don't.

People wanting to restrict something they know nothing about, is like grandma saying all video games are evil and wanting them all banned. As a gamer that would piss me off, especially if it had as much attention and foot hold as these proposals against the 2nd are getting. Mostly because not just members of congress, but citizens themselves are promoting them.

The irony of which is many of the people promoting gun restrictions and bans have armed security guards.

Occupy showed us that the rich don't give a **** , and empowering them further to be able to have the right to defend themselves while us "less fortunate" people can't just infuriates me more. That literally is saying that their life and property is more valuable and important than yours or mine.

I want to see something that works, and does not come after the 2nd amendment. We have enough laws already, more won't fix it. Laws were broken to cause Sandy hook, and that did nothing to stop it. In the real world layered security has and always will work.
User avatar #621 to #619 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
*ban ALL guns
 Friends (0)