Quote :

"Blacks arent going to vote? Are you retarded like dnl?"

lol, yeah no shit, Blacks are going to vote in historic numbers this year.

10/15/2008 9:25:14 PM

Quote :

"And no I don't think Obama is going to ban all "semi-automatic weapons" by the definition you just gave me. That would encompass nearly every personal firearm out there."

And your basis for that is? He has stated he supports banning all semi-automatic weapons. Dianne Feinstein has expressed her desire to have all private firearms banned, Chuck Schumer is the same. These are going to be people with considerable power in the next congress. Why would we expect them not to act on it?

Quote :

"How about I answer your question with a question: How many crimes have been committed using rocket launchers? None? Oh I guess we shouldn't ban them then."

How about you tell me why a product with a criminal misuse rate of practically zero should be prohibited on account of the fact that you find it scary.

10/15/2008 9:49:18 PM

It's a bullet. It's not a car, which can in one circumstance be used for good and in another be driven over someone. A bullet's entire purpose is to destroy something, whether it be a deer, a human, or a helicopter.

10/15/2008 10:06:57 PM

And legally, morally, there are times people need to be destroyed. Particularly, when they are attempting to destroy me.

10/15/2008 10:27:36 PM

Yeah, but you don't need a bullet that will rip someone's body in half and can hit targets over a mile away to kill a burglar in your home.

10/15/2008 10:39:36 PM

Again, your perception of my "need" is irrelevant when you're talking about something that has, to my knowledge, never been used in a criminal act by a private citizen.

The prohibition of the .50 BMG is just phase one in an overall plan to eliminate firearms. You start with the least popular and work your way down in incremental levels until you wind up like Great Britain, which, despite very strict gun control laws, has (according to the International Crime Victims Survey compiled by the Leiden University in Holland) significantly higher rates of violent crime than the United States.

10/15/2008 10:55:03 PM

So, I'm guessing you don't feel ANY firearms need to be eliminated?

At least, none that haven't been used in any criminal act by a citizen, right?

You do realize there's probably thousands of military weapons that haven't been used in a criminal act by a citizen. Do you want these all to be freely available for purchase?

10/15/2008 11:59:05 PM

Quote :

"No, but when those items are not only useless to the civilian but also inherently dangerous, then they need to be banned. Hence why I said "a giant fucking bullet" before mentioning it has no use."

haha

thx for the laugh

but seriously, this just puts us back to the whole "guns dont kill people, people kill people" argument and we know that isnt going to sway anyone's opinion

and it is awfully ostentatious of you to assume that just because you believe something may be "inherently dangerous" that it should be banned...this is a slippery slope to a nanny state

taking the 2nd amendment literally, it is prudent that civilians should have access to weapons that the government has for times when the government becomes ineffective and needs to be changed

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 12:28 AM. Reason : 

10/16/2008 12:27:10 AM

Sure, it's a slippery slope, but there has to be a limit on what is available to the average joe, you would agree, right?

Or do you think banning anything is a slippery slope?

In fact, let's give everyone machine guns. Slippery slopes!

10/16/2008 8:51:56 AM

Out of all the issues, gun control seems like a very minor one this time around.

10/16/2008 9:18:37 AM

Quote :

"In fact, let's give everyone machine guns."

That's just asinine.

That's not what anyone is saying on here. What they are saying is that by going down the road in which firearms that aren't traditionally used are banned, you're going down the path in which the government as the ability to ban all firearms....

As much as I hate to agree with him (and he knows it) JCASHFAN is right in that there might come a day when the people literally have to rise up against the government and overthrow it. It's not out of the realm of possibilities, that's for damn sure.

Although I just don't like to think about it

10/16/2008 9:26:59 AM

You're going to need a lot more than a damn pistol to overthrow the government, that's for certain. US soldiers have already become highly resistant to bullets. That trend will only continue. Armor will improve and improve. Drones will become more and more common.

Maybe each of us could use a rocket launcher. (Good luck getting past the point-defense lasers.)

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM. Reason : use]

10/16/2008 9:49:35 AM

Quote :

"What they are saying is that by going down the road in which firearms that aren't traditionally used are banned, you're going down the path in which the government as the ability to ban all firearms...."

We're going around in circles here.

You: They want to take away all our weapons! Even [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage]

Me: Yeah, but what practical use do you have for [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage]?

You: That doesn't matter! It's a slippery slope! Once you ban [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage], the government will ban everything!

Me: But don't you think that it would be dangerous for someone to have [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage]?

You: It doesn't matter because no one has used [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage]!

Me: Still, I have to say that [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage] can't be used for hunting or personal defense. In fact, the only use of [insert incredibly powerful weapon that has no practical civilian usage] would be in large scale military operations. Why should the average citizen have it?

You: It's a slippery slope! SLIPPERY SLOPE! SLIPPERYSLOPERYSLIPPERYSLOPERYSLIPPERYSLOPERYSLIPPERYSLOPERYSLIPPERYSLOPERYSLIPPERYSLOPERY!!##@#

10/16/2008 9:52:37 AM

It's like that episode of South Park, with Family Guy and the manatees. If you take one episode off the air, the whole show gets canceled

10/16/2008 9:54:48 AM

Seriously, I think technology will make the prospect of popular military revolution increasingly dubious. We're quickly approaching the point where dudes with guns no longer pose a significant threat.

10/16/2008 9:57:36 AM

Look, I personally would love to ban all firearms. But it wouldn't make me any safer. I live in DC, where the gun ban was just lifted, but before that, it was incredibly easy to get a weapon. There are just as many shootings as there were before...no difference really.

People are going to continue to go in circles on this debate, purely because there really doesnt seem to be a happy medium that exists on this issue. Certainly one of the hot-button issues that most people are on one side or the other.

10/16/2008 10:06:47 AM

OMFTechnocracy!

---

If you live in most major cities you don't need a car. In fact, due to the absence of parking and the heaviness of traffic, you really have no practical use for a car. You can ride the bus, cab, or subway to your destination. Because cars are dangerous and have no practical private civilian use in large cities, we should ban them.

Fast food has a practical use, sure, but there are many substitutes for it that are far less dangerous. 451,326 people died of heart disease in 2004, compared to 29,569 people killed by guns the same year. So let's ban dangerous fast food and junk food and make everybody eat fruits and salads instead, because those are just as useful.

Jet-skis serve absolutely no practical use. They, like most guns, are used exclusively for recreation. They're dangerous, even more so than regular boats, which should probably also be banned for most of the public who have no practical use for them and which are involved in a number of deaths each year. Also, boats are commonly used to facilitate crimes, such as drug smuggling. So let's ban boats for common civilian use. Special licenses for professional fishermen, but only if they complete an elaborate safety course.

Booze. Oh, hell, booze. What possible practical use does it have? All it does is impair your health or just kill you. 16,919 died in alcohol-related car crashes in 2004. And that's just the car crashes. It doesn't include the chronic alcoholics whose organs just failed. It doesn't include the alcohol poisonings or the, "Hey guys, watch this!" incidents.

I think cigarettes speak for themselves. Skydiving, bungee jumping, and roller coasters also leap to mind.



And so on, and so on, and so on. These two things are not criteria for banning something:

1) It doesn't have a practical civilian use, and
2) It's dangerous

10/16/2008 2:43:35 PM

Let me know one reason a citizen should be allowed to own one of these:



Because they use, for ammunition, the bullets that JCASHFAN was so vehemently against banning.

10/16/2008 2:53:47 PM

gun nuts are so annoying...almost as annoying as religious nuts

10/16/2008 2:58:40 PM

Quote :

"OMFTechnocracy!"

It's amusing to see you descend to baiting. Advancing military hardware has almost nothing to do with technocracy.

Quote :

"Let me know one reason a citizen should be allowed to own one of these:"

Entertainment and the potential to threaten the US military should the need appear. That's one of those ridiculous sniper rifles that hits harder than a elephant gun, right? I remember reading about a model that produced a muzzle energy of a fifteen kilojoules.

10/16/2008 3:10:52 PM

Yeah, it can pierce the walls of most buildings and through level 8 body armor (which is the strongest in existence).

10/16/2008 3:20:17 PM

^^ That would probably work well for assassinating Obama too, I bet.

note to secret service: In no way do I endorse assassinating Obama, i'm voting for the guy, it is supposed to be a slightly tasteless, tounge-in-cheek joke.

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2008 3:27:49 PM

Quote :

"Let me know one reason a citizen should be allowed to own one of these: "

The short answer is to overthrow the government.

The long answer is that at the very least to provide armed resistance. Yes, it is probably no longer realistic that private citizens will be able to best our professional military. But they can provide the type of armed resistance that we are seeing in Iraq and as in Iraq that is not completely ineffective.

Gun control is a stone around the Democratic party's neck that desperately needs to be abandoned. The drive for control of sophisticated small arms is little more than fear and sentiment. Can anyone point to any evidence that banning these weapons actually leads to significant reductions in violence?

I think maybe there is an argument with handguns. And indeed, I don't see how handguns are protected under the 2nd amendment because they don't seem like a necessary tool of making war, but I could be wrong.

However, it is completely appalling the ACLU does not defend the second amendment. Guns contribute gun violence. Yeah, I think they do. But so do murders, and the ACLU seems to have no problem defending them on technicalities.

Freedom means that we live in a more dangerous society. That is the fundamental trade off that we make we move towards freedom. Known murders should be protected from double jeopardy and self-incrimination and private citizens should be able to keep small arms. These are the sacrifices you make for liberty.

10/16/2008 3:30:43 PM

Quote :

"But they can provide the type of armed resistance that we are seeing in Iraq and as in Iraq that is not completely ineffective."

Yeah, definitely. But note that small arms have been relatively ineffective against US soldiers. Explosives seem to work better. RPGs, improvised roadside bombs.

10/16/2008 3:36:30 PM

True^

10/16/2008 3:41:31 PM

Quote :

"Let me know one reason a citizen should be allowed to own one of these"

According to the Violence Policy Center (formerly the Brady Campaign): http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm the .50 BMG has been actually used in a whopping SIX crimes since 1989. They came up with a total of 28 incidents involving a .50 and some of them are tenuous at best. Mexican drug dealers are going to get weapons somewhere.

Again, it is on the US government to demonstrate a compelling reason to restrict my rights. I don't have to beg and plead for them out of the graciousness of their bureaucratic little hearts.

10/16/2008 4:18:38 PM

How many criminals have used nuclear weapons hidden in suitcases to kill people?

Should we restrict them?

Quote :

"demonstrate a compelling reason"

How about the fact that I can put a cantaloupe sized hole in someone's body from over a mile away?

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 8:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2008 8:28:06 PM

Let me know one reason a citizen should be allowed to own one of these:



I mean these things go 200 mph, when the fastest anyone should go is around 70.

People who own these are liable to crash and die, and probably take a bus load of kids with them. They need to be banned.

10/17/2008 12:38:32 AM

The man's right. There is no reason you should be allowed to own a car that goes more than 85 miles an hour, since that is the maximum speed limit in most states. We'll say 100 on the outside. 100 pretty much sets the high-end for "reasonable and prudent" laws in a lot of states. Plus, those things hog gas, which makes us pay more money to terrorists who just use it to buy the guns you want to ban for the express purpose of shooting us.

Quote :

"It's amusing to see you descend to baiting. Advancing military hardware has almost nothing to do with technocracy."

Every thread you go in

no matter what the thread is actually about

you immediately jump to, "Yeah, well, technology is making that obsolete."

Maybe technocracy was the wrong word. I don't care. You know exactly what I fucking meant. At this point, you are incapable of discussing any issue that actually exists because you are too goddamn busy talking about science fiction land sometime in the future when the problem will either not exist or be so different it can't be discussed in the original context. It's obnoxious as fuck. And I don't care if I'm being obnoxious as fuck by pointing it out, because nobody else seems willing to do it. There was a time when you were an actual contributor to this forum; now it's all, "Oh, well, in our lifetimes we won't have to worry about it because we'll all be post-humans." It's not constructive. It's fantasy. It's bullshit. It's not even a step above the hippie generation before us deciding to put off self-improvement because they were certain the world was going to end in nuclear war before they hit thirty. If anything, it's counterproductive. You don't fix problems by talking about the magical land in which those problems no longer exist. And all of these flaws in the garbage you dump in these threads would be tolerable, except, again, you dump it constantly, regardless of whether or not it's relevant.

10/17/2008 3:26:37 AM

Yeah, the UFP will fix everything--just like the UN did on Earth. Hey, wait. . . .

10/17/2008 3:34:30 AM

AndyMac, your analogy is flawed because that same analogy can be made with almost any solid object.

"I can use this spoon to kill someone, therefore.."

The fact is, long range sniper rifles have one purpose, and that is to deliver large and incredibly lethal bullets over extremely long distances.

They can't be used to take a pregnant woman to a hospital, like the vehicle you just mentioned.

They can't be used to serve food to her during recovery, like the spoon I just mentioned.

10/17/2008 8:31:06 AM

All the legal purposes that the car I mentioned can serve can also be done by slower cars.

The ONLY reason to own that car over a cheaper car is to do something which is illegal anyway.

You're not talking about banning all guns, you're talking about banning only the ones which have uses way outside the normal legal purposes. Well, I'm not talking about banning all cars, only the ones that go over 150 MPH, which is way outside the normal legal purposes.

10/17/2008 9:39:11 AM

That's fine with me.

In fact, that's why most cars are electronically limited to go only about 140mph in the United States.

10/17/2008 11:55:44 AM

Quote :

"Maybe technocracy was the wrong word."

It is. The traditional social movement requires nothing more than tech from the 1920s.

Quote :

"You know exactly what I fucking meant."

While this would conveniently excuse your lack of clarity, I did not. You could object to either my advocacy of a new social system or my promotion of Kurzweil's Law. (Or both.) The two are distinct, though I intertwine them. I would push for libertarian socialism even if you convinced me technology would never advance. I'd remain excited about future changes if I suddenly converted to capitalism.

Quote :

"And I don't care if I'm being obnoxious as fuck by pointing it out, because nobody else seems willing to do it."

Your service will not be forgotten, soldier. Come 2050, they'll erect statues of you across the world. The man who single-handed slapped down exponential progress and ushered in the era of stagnation. Who defeated the robot armies? GrumpyGOP! Who stopped virtual reality? GrumpyGOP! Why, bards will sing that you pull the space elevator back to Earth with your bare hands. You're a hero.

Quote :

"It's not constructive. It's fantasy. It's bullshit."

On the contrary, it's informed prediction based on existing trends.

Quote :

"You don't fix problems by talking about the magical land in which those problems no longer exist."

No, you fix them by promoting the solutions. I don't consider the Singularity inevitable, but likely and desirable. If had money, I would donate to the organizations actively pursuing AI and nanotechnology.

Quote :

"And all of these flaws in the garbage you dump in these threads would be tolerable, except, again, you dump it constantly, regardless of whether or not it's relevant."

And you oppose it in similar fashion. Doesn't matter if it's a fucking thread about a movie focused on technocracy, you still jump on me. Continue the crusade, comrade. Don't let me dissuade you.

Now, back on topic.

What's so horrible about folks using guns and fast cars for entertainment? Not an efficient use of resources, but that's true for all luxury items. Ridiculous sniper rifles and the like are toys for big boys. I can see the appeal. Hitting something with fifteen kilojoules does seem pretty sweet.

10/17/2008 1:52:21 PM

True, but then when someone blows, literally, the head clear off Barack Hussein during his commencement speech, in addition to killing Michelle because the bullet is so fucking huge, and the person is in another borough a mile away, people will want to know why something like that is purchasable by citizens.

Just because your kid has never drank detergent doesn't mean you should leave it in the middle of the floor.

10/17/2008 2:05:06 PM

If something like that ever happens, I bet the weapon in question would be banned. We all would draw the line somewhere. I don't approve of state force, but I wouldn't want my neighbor to have a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, the wonderful government has hundreds of nukes within a few miles of where I stay. (If World War III ever starts, I'm toast.)

10/17/2008 2:28:20 PM

Quote :

"If something like that ever happens,"

10/17/2008 4:21:14 PM

^ Doesn't that sort of invalidate your point by showing that presidential execution is possible without spending a few grand on a weapon that would require considerable skill to use effectively at ranges beyond that of a cheaper, more commonly available gun. Why ban a rare gun in fear of a rare circumstance when it's much more likely a common hunting rifle would be used in said rare circumstance?

10/17/2008 5:53:27 PM

The fact that cheaper, more widely available, more portable, and more concealable weapons could be used towards the same reprehensible end means that their use would be signifcantly more probable. It's not to say that the 50 cal sniper rifle wouldn't offer certain advantages, but since owning a .50 cal wouldn't predispose one to assassinating the president then the most probable weapon used in such an act would be the most probably found high power rifle. Since something like the Remington model 700 would be vastly more likely to be in the hands of a crazed assassin, and political shootings haven't made high powered rifles or handguns banned so far, I wouldn't worry so much about that.

What I would worry about is the justifiable but inevitably misdirected rage that would come from the black community. I would not want to be driving in a black part of town with even the tiniest confederate flag bumper sticker or even a mccain/palin sticker on such a day. So, if you're white and you hear someone talk about wanting to kill or harm Obama- strangle said person for your own safety.

Quote :

"I mean these things go 200 mph, when the fastest anyone should go is around 70. People who own these are liable to crash and die, and probably take a bus load of kids with them. They need to be banned."

While I don't believe in banning most simple firearms, I really hate this kind of argument. The purpose of the improved power of a sports car is not to create a more deadly car. The purpose of creating .50 cal sniper rifles is to create a more deadly weapon effective against body armor and other light defenses. This is why most Americans would not want RPG's to be legal but have no problem with the legality of a Ferrari. While there is disagreement over where the demarcation between a constitutionally protected armament and one that should never be owned by civilians, almost everyone does believe in this distinction. I'm sure that not even the most enthusiastic defenders of the second amendment extend it to things like nuclear weapons- assuming their enthusiasm does not broach insanity.

Using the car analogy as it is used over and over is condescending to the point of being counterproductive. Even if you think people should be able to own things like tanks and RPG's, I'm sure you'd stop in that belief somewhere between tank and hydrogen bomb. It is therefore dishonest to attempt to argue that the lethality of a weapon and potential harm are not valid concerns.

I for one don't have a problem with private citizens owning large caliber rifles.



[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 4:20 AM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 3:59:57 AM

Does anyone seriously think civilians should be able to able to own tanks?

10/18/2008 11:37:31 AM

Yeah, there are some people who believe that for the American people to properly defend themselves against the government's abuse of power that we should be able to own almost any weapon that the government could bring against us if it chose.

Also, the question is very different if you mean an M1A2 with fully working weapons or a WWI or WWII tank with cemented cannons. What WWII buff wouldn't want to own a drivable panzer, and how dangerous would it be if they drove it on private property? It's still a nasty weapon without the main gun- you might remember a news clip of a guy in CA stealing one from an armory and terrorizing police and drivers for hours before finally getting stuck on a concrete divider.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : dyslexia strikes fascist and hippy alike ]

10/18/2008 11:46:14 AM

It's M1A2, hippy.

10/18/2008 11:50:31 AM

I don't necessarily oppose that, but I've never heard anyone demanding tanks. I agree there's a big difference between armed and unarmed tanks. I was thinking about that main gun shooting projectiles with ten megajoules of kinetic energy. That's the same as a small car going over two hundred miles per hour.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM. Reason : get it right or pay the price]

10/18/2008 11:56:40 AM

There's a huge spectrum; tanks are towards the extreme end. Things that are just on the edge and actually debated include assault rifles, the .50 cal as mentioned, 20mm sniper rifles (about 100 cal), armor piercing bullets, sub machine guns, etc.

Anyways, I think we generally agree- at least that the lethality and potential harm caused by a weapon is a valid concern when discussing its legality. I was arguing with people making the car analogy- those that suggest that the increased lethality of large caliber rifles is similar to the increased lethality of a powerful/large vehicle. That's just silly.

I think I'm hijacking this thread so I'll stop.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 11:58:51 AM

Quote :

"The long answer is that at the very least to provide armed resistance. Yes, it is probably no longer realistic that private citizens will be able to best our professional military. But they can provide the type of armed resistance that we are seeing in Iraq and as in Iraq that is not completely ineffective."

Is that why we have such wonderful success in Iraq? Guerrilla warfare and ingenuity will always trump tanks.

They really do a lot to brainwash us about how powerful F16's and our tanks are.

Quote :

"Sure, it's a slippery slope, but there has to be a limit on what is available to the average joe, you would agree, right? Or do you think banning anything is a slippery slope? In fact, let's give everyone machine guns. Slippery slopes!"

They do this in Switzerland. Every month you have to fire so many rounds.

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
The gun policy in Switzerland is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but also one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[1]

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 1:12 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : oops]

10/18/2008 12:57:16 PM

There are many reasons we struggle in Iraq.

A lack of military strength isn't one of them.

10/18/2008 1:04:30 PM

^
So basically you didn't read the post at all?

I was pointing out that no matter how powerful the military is a group of rebels with homemade bombs can cause serious fucking havoc if they have the will.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : a]

10/18/2008 1:12:52 PM

Do you what happens to Iraqi and Afghani insurgents who engage US soldiers with small arms? They commonly all die. They might as well be suicide bombers. That's not what I'm looking for in guerrilla resistance. The military claims a hundred-to-one kill ratio.

10/18/2008 1:16:19 PM

Quote :

"I was pointing out that no matter how powerful the military is a group of rebels with homemade bombs can cause serious fucking havoc if they have the will."

"[If] they have the will" is the key. More to the point, if the political will of the guerillas is greater than the political will of the military.

Right now, the political will of the Iraq insurgency is greater than our government's political will. This is why we continue to struggle with the insurgency in Iraq; the US has a lack of political ability, not a lack of military strength.

10/18/2008 1:27:50 PM

I love how threads devolve.

10/18/2008 3:57:18 PM