From the Embassy: Assange: this sleepover is amazing. Want to play truth or dare? Ecuadorian Ambassador: No, Julian, can we just go to sleep? Assange: How about we do some prank calls? I got a shit list we can call. EA: Can we add Amnesty International and the EFF on there? Assange: Sure, as long as we can call Obama EA: Why not? I got a red phone over there.::sound of teenage girls chuckling::
And what country are you from? Name one country that has not engaged in "toppling peaceful regimes, undermining democracies, assassinating legitimate heads of state, waging illegitimate war and generally just fucking things up and killing thousands just for the sake of funnelling money into the right pockets" for thousands of years. If you want to hold us (America) responsible for every action our country has been engaged in, I would wager that our 250 year history is nothing compared to the rampant bloodshed, Feudalism, and barbaric nature of 95% of the planet.
America's answering machine: We would love to come liberate you, but our last 2 liberation actions from evil groups didn't go so well. We miss the days of the grateful Filipinos, Germans, French, Polish, Japanese, Koreans, and Kuwaitis. Please leave a message, and we will get back to you when our population has the stomach for war. BEEP!
"Engaged in military activity" is not the same as "no connection to the military". While engaging in military activity is the time where normal capacity magazines (10-30) would be needed. You are trying to make the typical flawed argument of "30 rounds are not needed to shoot a deer." But the 2nd amendment doesn't say "people can keep and bear arms to shoot at wildlife and eat them." It never says why or for what purpose people can keep firearms, it only says that they can.
If you read the Federalist papers, and other journals/writings of the Founding Fathers, it is clear the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent another tyrant like King Oba.... I mean King George from taking over the United States. However, most liberals looney's like you prefer to cite laws passed by other countries in their justification for doing the same here.
You're distorting the numbers. Rifles are not the same as shotguns, that's why they are in a different category. So-called "assault weapons" do not fire shotgun shells, they fire standard ammunition, with a bullet on the front, powder surrounded by a (usually) brass casing, and a primer at the end. So murder by "assault rifle" falls into the "rifle" category in the statistics published by the FBI.
You cannot assume that unspecified means under-reported of any category. It defeats the purpose of analyzing statistics. They are unknowns, and should be treated as such. It boils down to the simple fact, handguns are used in ~75% or murders in the United States. Yet the politicians are talking about banning "assault weapons", which are defined by cosmetic features on a rifle.
War is full of stories of individual soldiers facing down numerous enemies. Take for example: Army Dentist who was found with 98 dead enemy soldiers in front of him. Later study shows that he was shot 76 times, and speculation is that 24 of those bullet wounds were while he was still alive. Daniel Inouye Killed 25 enemy soldiers in WWII. Literally gave his right arm to kill Nazis. Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart. Yes, there were two of them, fighting hundreds of armed enemies. They killed over 20 bad guys, while armed with a semi-automatic rifle, a bolt action rifle, and pistols. Or you could just go read the listing of MoH citations. There's thousands of men who took it upon themselves to take on larger enemy forces. No regard for their personal safety, many made the ultimate sacrifice and died
Yeah, like they did in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine if the soldiers in the Revolutionary War had said "Hey George, we don't really want to stand in a formation 100 feet away from a line of British muskets that are shooting at us. It seems kind of dangerous. We're gonna sit this one out, find us at the bar when we don't have to take the chance of dying to protect innocent lives."
High-capacity magazine(10+): 2 bad guys attack you, and you are a bad shot. 3 bad guys try to kidnap you, and you are a mediocre shot. 5 bad guys break into your house, and you want to make sure each one is actually dead. Tyrant takes over the US government, declares martial law, suspends habeus corpus, and starts rounding up civilians for extermination.
Semi-automatic weapons: Boar hunting Bear hunting Fowl Hunting Knowing that you cannot hit a target 100% of the time. Tyrant takes over the US government, declares martial law, suspends habeus corpus, and starts rounding up civilians for extermination.
The debate is about how to stop bad guys with guns. You can either remove all guns from the country, or increase the amount of GOOD people who have guns. I would argue the former doesn't work. Evidence of that can be found in Mexico, where there is a strong firearms ban. Yet the cartels seem to always have real assault rifles (automatic) in which they shoot cops, politicians, and judges on a regular basis. So to do the latter....
Those with training (NRA classes, LE, current/former military) who are willing to undergo a reasonable background check (felonies/criminal, fingerprints, mental health history) should be allowed to purchase any semiautomatic rifle or handgun, and be permitted to carry that weapon in a concealed manner at any location, with a few exceptions (while drinking alcohol, airports, courts). Specific rules should be added, like a requirement to carry frangible/hollow point rounds to prevent collateral damage. Others rules which should be included are proper storage methods and refresher training every 3-6 months (unless their job requires firearm training on a regular basis, like LE/military).
The worst school massacre took place in 1927 using TNT. Virginia Tech was committed with a.22 caliber pistol and a 9mm pistol. Why aren't you saying those should be banned?
A quick search has not revealed any successful incidents of civilians stopping mass-shootings with their own guns. Off-duty police and military have, but I can't find evidence of civilians without military or police training doing it.
Because those are the people most likely to run towards gun fire (former military myself). But despite the fact that I am well-trained in firearms, I still have to go through the same buying process as any other civilian. The CCW process is identical for us, as it is for civilians. Law Enforcement is another story, as current/former cops can get CCW's without a problem. But nobody is talking about exceptions for LE/military, they are talking about blanket bans on cosmetic features of firearms. In 1995, former military could not purchase 30-round clips or AR-15s, despite the fact that they knew exactly how to use/store them.
I'm fine with preventing Joe Psychopath from having a gun. But don't take them away from those of us with experience and the capability to handle them with care and respect.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics.
But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.
Apples and Oranges. About 300 people are killed per year by ALL long rifles and shotguns, not just so-called Assault Weapons. So tell me, how would banning Assault Weapons prevent handgun murders?
On top of that, the military AK-47 is a machine gun and requires a federal permit to own. That law has been in place since 1936 (a law the NRA strongly supported). Owning a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47 is not illegal.
Have you ever reloaded a firearm with a magazine? It takes less than 10 seconds. Are you confident that your average Joe Schmoe is going to charge and restrain an active shooter in that time period, or are they going to hide? My guess, is that most would hide. If we go with the Mythbusters experiment concerning "bringing a knife to a gun fight," then that person (let's call him Bruce Lee) would need to be within 25 feet in order to close the distance required to reach an active shooter. How many people are going to stay that close to an active shooter? Instinct tells us to run away from loud noises, unless that reaction was taken over by training (military, security, LE).
I accept your challenge. It would have been very beneficial for the civilians at Lexington and Concord to have firearms which had over 10 rounds in a magazine. There was no Continental Army in 1775, just local militias. Having a 30-round magazine weapon would have decimated the ranks of the British Army.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Embassy: ::sound of teenage girls chuckling::
Assange: this sleepover is amazing. Want to play truth or dare?
Ecuadorian Ambassador: No, Julian, can we just go to sleep?
Assange: How about we do some prank calls? I got a shit list we can call.
EA: Can we add Amnesty International and the EFF on there?
Assange: Sure, as long as we can call Obama
EA: Why not? I got a red phone over there.
And what country are you from? Name one country that has not engaged in "toppling peaceful regimes, undermining democracies, assassinating legitimate heads of state, waging illegitimate war and generally just fucking things up and killing thousands just for the sake of funnelling money into the right pockets" for thousands of years. If you want to hold us (America) responsible for every action our country has been engaged in, I would wager that our 250 year history is nothing compared to the rampant bloodshed, Feudalism, and barbaric nature of 95% of the planet.
Filipinos, Germans, French, Polish, Japanese, Koreans
Yes, because those countries are covered in oil. So much, huge mistake giving them their national sovereignty back after liberation.
America's answering machine:
We would love to come liberate you, but our last 2 liberation actions from evil groups didn't go so well. We miss the days of the grateful Filipinos, Germans, French, Polish, Japanese, Koreans, and Kuwaitis. Please leave a message, and we will get back to you when our population has the stomach for war. BEEP!
Whenever I see or touch soot, it is ambient temperature. Not sure how inert particles in the air make the air warm
"/sarcasm"
"Engaged in military activity" is not the same as "no connection to the military". While engaging in military activity is the time where normal capacity magazines (10-30) would be needed. You are trying to make the typical flawed argument of "30 rounds are not needed to shoot a deer." But the 2nd amendment doesn't say "people can keep and bear arms to shoot at wildlife and eat them." It never says why or for what purpose people can keep firearms, it only says that they can.
If you read the Federalist papers, and other journals/writings of the Founding Fathers, it is clear the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent another tyrant like King Oba.... I mean King George from taking over the United States. However, most liberals looney's like you prefer to cite laws passed by other countries in their justification for doing the same here.
You're distorting the numbers. Rifles are not the same as shotguns, that's why they are in a different category. So-called "assault weapons" do not fire shotgun shells, they fire standard ammunition, with a bullet on the front, powder surrounded by a (usually) brass casing, and a primer at the end. So murder by "assault rifle" falls into the "rifle" category in the statistics published by the FBI.
You cannot assume that unspecified means under-reported of any category. It defeats the purpose of analyzing statistics. They are unknowns, and should be treated as such. It boils down to the simple fact, handguns are used in ~75% or murders in the United States. Yet the politicians are talking about banning "assault weapons", which are defined by cosmetic features on a rifle.
Not putting rounds into a magazine, putting a new magazine into the weapon.
War is full of stories of individual soldiers facing down numerous enemies. Take for example:
Army Dentist who was found with 98 dead enemy soldiers in front of him. Later study shows that he was shot 76 times, and speculation is that 24 of those bullet wounds were while he was still alive.
Daniel Inouye Killed 25 enemy soldiers in WWII. Literally gave his right arm to kill Nazis.
Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart. Yes, there were two of them, fighting hundreds of armed enemies. They killed over 20 bad guys, while armed with a semi-automatic rifle, a bolt action rifle, and pistols.
Or you could just go read the listing of MoH citations. There's thousands of men who took it upon themselves to take on larger enemy forces. No regard for their personal safety, many made the ultimate sacrifice and died
Yeah, like they did in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine if the soldiers in the Revolutionary War had said "Hey George, we don't really want to stand in a formation 100 feet away from a line of British muskets that are shooting at us. It seems kind of dangerous. We're gonna sit this one out, find us at the bar when we don't have to take the chance of dying to protect innocent lives."
~6,000 murders were committed in 2010 with handguns, compared to ~350 with rifles. So by your logic, we should be discussing a handgun ban.
And had the guard Rangered Up, he could have stopped it. That's his own mistake, for not taking the chance to avert a tragedy.
Your information is 8 years out of date. More murders were committed by bare hands and feet or knives than by rifles.
Actually, TNT is much more effective for "slaughter"
I was being generous. You are right, it takes 3 seconds max to change a magazine.
High-capacity magazine(10+):
2 bad guys attack you, and you are a bad shot.
3 bad guys try to kidnap you, and you are a mediocre shot.
5 bad guys break into your house, and you want to make sure each one is actually dead.
Tyrant takes over the US government, declares martial law, suspends habeus corpus, and starts rounding up civilians for extermination.
Semi-automatic weapons:
Boar hunting
Bear hunting
Fowl Hunting
Knowing that you cannot hit a target 100% of the time.
Tyrant takes over the US government, declares martial law, suspends habeus corpus, and starts rounding up civilians for extermination.
I was being generous with the 10 second reload. In reality, less than 5 seconds is more accurate, even for an inexperienced user.
The debate is about how to stop bad guys with guns. You can either remove all guns from the country, or increase the amount of GOOD people who have guns. I would argue the former doesn't work. Evidence of that can be found in Mexico, where there is a strong firearms ban. Yet the cartels seem to always have real assault rifles (automatic) in which they shoot cops, politicians, and judges on a regular basis. So to do the latter....
Those with training (NRA classes, LE, current/former military) who are willing to undergo a reasonable background check (felonies/criminal, fingerprints, mental health history) should be allowed to purchase any semiautomatic rifle or handgun, and be permitted to carry that weapon in a concealed manner at any location, with a few exceptions (while drinking alcohol, airports, courts). Specific rules should be added, like a requirement to carry frangible/hollow point rounds to prevent collateral damage. Others rules which should be included are proper storage methods and refresher training every 3-6 months (unless their job requires firearm training on a regular basis, like LE/military).
The worst school massacre took place in 1927 using TNT. Virginia Tech was committed with a .22 caliber pistol and a 9mm pistol. Why aren't you saying those should be banned?
A quick search has not revealed any successful incidents of civilians stopping mass-shootings with their own guns. Off-duty police and military have, but I can't find evidence of civilians without military or police training doing it.
Because those are the people most likely to run towards gun fire (former military myself). But despite the fact that I am well-trained in firearms, I still have to go through the same buying process as any other civilian. The CCW process is identical for us, as it is for civilians. Law Enforcement is another story, as current/former cops can get CCW's without a problem. But nobody is talking about exceptions for LE/military, they are talking about blanket bans on cosmetic features of firearms. In 1995, former military could not purchase 30-round clips or AR-15s, despite the fact that they knew exactly how to use/store them.
I'm fine with preventing Joe Psychopath from having a gun. But don't take them away from those of us with experience and the capability to handle them with care and respect.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics.
But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.
Apples and Oranges. About 300 people are killed per year by ALL long rifles and shotguns, not just so-called Assault Weapons. So tell me, how would banning Assault Weapons prevent handgun murders?
On top of that, the military AK-47 is a machine gun and requires a federal permit to own. That law has been in place since 1936 (a law the NRA strongly supported). Owning a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47 is not illegal.
Have you ever reloaded a firearm with a magazine? It takes less than 10 seconds. Are you confident that your average Joe Schmoe is going to charge and restrain an active shooter in that time period, or are they going to hide? My guess, is that most would hide. If we go with the Mythbusters experiment concerning "bringing a knife to a gun fight," then that person (let's call him Bruce Lee) would need to be within 25 feet in order to close the distance required to reach an active shooter. How many people are going to stay that close to an active shooter? Instinct tells us to run away from loud noises, unless that reaction was taken over by training (military, security, LE).
I accept your challenge. It would have been very beneficial for the civilians at Lexington and Concord to have firearms which had over 10 rounds in a magazine. There was no Continental Army in 1775, just local militias. Having a 30-round magazine weapon would have decimated the ranks of the British Army.
And on the other side of their signs, WBC will write "But marrying your sister would be OK"
And in response, the Westboro Baptist Church has announced that all 12 of their members will take to the streets of Makeb to protest.
He who controls the spice, controls the formation of protein!