- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't dead
Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow
Remove all weapons that can fire more than 3 shots without a reload and make reloading require putting the weapon down (two handed reload process). No more mass shootings, people can still hunt, people can still pretend they have it to protect themselves and it doesn't violate the second "AMENDMENT" that apparently can't be changed...
Come on, there is reasonable compromise between an ar-15 and a musket.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Certainly the one in question in the last number of shootings, the AR15 I believe? Similar ones to that.
Great, let's just call it a total ban all AR-15 and similar rifles. In fact, fuck it, let's just ban all rifles. Assuming that this completely eliminates all homicides committed with rifles (as opposed to murderers just using another type of firearm/weapon), we've now eliminated about 4% of total firearm-related homicides* , or about 3% of total homicides** (source).
Mission Accomplished!
* Assumes the same distribution of rifles in the "Firearms, type not stated" category as in the total population of firearms with type stated
** Same caveat as above, but also applied to "Other weapons or weapons not stated" category
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
No amount of slippery sloping will make an AR-15 "and similar rifles" useful for self defense, and forty rounds a minute at short range for hunting isn't useful, and certainly not "sporting." So, you know, a drop of 3%~4% is pretty good for something that is unnecessary.
Seriously, there is an area between assault rifle and musket.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 2:40pm by lolgaxe
Seriously, there is an area between assault rifle and musket.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 2:40pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Well, I bet there's at least 325 people who'd appreciate a 4% reduction in firearm homicides...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
No amount of slippery sloping will make an AR-15 "and similar rifles" useful for self defense, and forty rounds a minute at short range for hunting isn't useful, and certainly not "sporting."
I'm sure that your personal opinion on what is "useful for self defense" is appreciated by legal gun owners in regards to their self defense.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
I'm sure that your personal opinion on what is "useful for self defense" is appreciated by legal gun owners in regards to their self defense.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I would defer to individuals to decide for themselves what they feel is necessary for their own self defense.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Seems like a pretty easy low hanging fruit. Not all problems will be solved, but it's one that can be addressed, so lets address it and then continue.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Demea wrote:
I would defer to individuals to decide for themselves what they feel is necessary for their own self defense.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Seems like a pretty easy low hanging fruit. Not all problems will be solved, but it's one that can be addressed, so lets address it and then continue.
Continue with what? Frolicking through meadows? Enjoying a refreshing Fresca? Or banning more guns?
lolgaxe wrote:
So what realistic scenario does needing a weapon that is unwieldy around corners and fires forty rounds a minute of wall penetrating ammo "necessary for their own self defense?"
Fucked if I know. Clearing cattle rustlers off the ranch?
Just because you can't conceive of a "realistic scenario" doesn't mean others can't, or that they should be forced to obey your personal standards of realism.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
I would defer to individuals to decide for themselves what they feel is necessary for their own self defense.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 12:30pm by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Demea wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Seems like a pretty easy low hanging fruit. Not all problems will be solved, but it's one that can be addressed, so lets address it and then continue.
Continue with what? Frolicking through meadows? Enjoying a refreshing Fresca? Or banning more guns?
Quote:
lolgaxe wrote:
So what realistic scenario does needing a weapon that is unwieldy around corners and fires forty rounds a minute of wall penetrating ammo "necessary for their own self defense?"
Fucked if I know. Clearing cattle rustlers off the ranch?
Just because you can't conceive of a "realistic scenario" doesn't mean others can't, or that they should be forced to obey your personal standards of realism.
If there are cattle rustlers, then I would say it's not the ranchers job to deal with them. In our society individuals are not responsible for enforcing laws, hunting down criminals etc. We have people whose job that is, and they should be the ones dealing with it.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 2:32pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Why does something have to be a PDW to be "not-banned"? Serious question.
I think blanket bans are a ****** attempt at fixing the problem that does not address the issue appropriately, and causes tons of reactionary blowback for near zero political gain.
I think blanket bans are a ****** attempt at fixing the problem that does not address the issue appropriately, and causes tons of reactionary blowback for near zero political gain.
Just as Planned.
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
I would defer to individuals to decide for themselves what they feel is necessary for their own self defense.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 12:30pm by someproteinguy
Land mines are illegal due to indiscriminate harm.
RPGs aren't very effective at killing people en mass as an auto/semi small arm, are way more expensive and dangerous to handle.
Just as Planned.
Demea wrote:
Just gonna leave this here. TL;DR - check your white privilege, gun-haters.
Someone should invite all these terrified minorities to some gun rallies.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Guns aren't for personal safety, they are for the defense of the union, in the face of tyranny and/or invasion by a foreign power. Also, hunting for food.
Sign me up for my state run militia, so that I can get my state sponsored training in!
I don't see anything about personal safety, unless I missed it somewhere.
Sign me up for my state run militia, so that I can get my state sponsored training in!
The U.S. Constitution Article 1 wrote:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment wrote:
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.
I don't see anything about personal safety, unless I missed it somewhere.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Timelordwho wrote:
Why does something have to be a PDW to be "not-banned"? Serious question.
Because while courts have upheld bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons (a term which is itself poorly defined, of course), SCotUS recently struck down bans on handguns on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes including self defense (District of Columbia v Heller).
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
Also, this is the coolest story I've read in a while.
Quote:
It could be that the page has moved to a different location, or there might have been an error in the URL you were trying to access. Also, you can try using the search box to the right or choosing from one of our recent stories below. If you think the link is broken, please feel free to contact us (don't forget to include the link), and we'll try to fix the problem. Thanks for reading POLITICO.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 12:46pm by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Why does something have to be a PDW to be "not-banned"? Serious question.
Because while courts have upheld bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons (a term which is itself poorly defined, of course), SCotUS recently struck down bans on handguns on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes including self defense (District of Columbia v Heller).
Traditionally lawful purposes don't start and stop with personal defense.
Just as Planned.
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
Also, this is the coolest story I've read in a while.
Quote:
It could be that the page has moved to a different location, or there might have been an error in the URL you were trying to access. Also, you can try using the search box to the right or choosing from one of our recent stories below. If you think the link is broken, please feel free to contact us (don't forget to include the link), and we'll try to fix the problem. Thanks for reading POLITICO.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 12:46pm by someproteinguy
Change the asterisks in the title to "gay". Because stupid filters.
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
Also, this is the coolest story I've read in a while.
Quote:
It could be that the page has moved to a different location, or there might have been an error in the URL you were trying to access. Also, you can try using the search box to the right or choosing from one of our recent stories below. If you think the link is broken, please feel free to contact us (don't forget to include the link), and we'll try to fix the problem. Thanks for reading POLITICO.
Replace the asterisks with "gay", obviously.
It's a story about some group advocating for firearm rights for homosexuals. Which isn't too surprising or shocking. I mean, you have Log Cabin Republicans and Latinos for Trump -- some percentage of a group is going to have a divergent opinion from the norm and obviously nothing intrinsically about being attracted to members of your gender means you have to hate guns. I don't know that the woman is the best spokesman; in the article she gives two examples and then can't give more because of the Lisa Simpson-esque "tiger repellent" excuse.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
I would defer to individuals to decide for themselves what they feel is necessary for their own self defense.
Edited, Jun 17th 2016 12:30pm by someproteinguy
Land mines are illegal due to indiscriminate harm.
RPGs aren't very effective at killing people en mass as an auto/semi small arm, are way more expensive and dangerous to handle.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Change the asterisks in the title to "gay". Because stupid filters.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 233
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (233)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't dead
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC