ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Sounds like we might have our first ISIS attack in the US

EvilWayz said:
Guns are a tool, just like you said. They are only dangerous if used improperly. In the hands of a bad person, fertilizer and fuel oil are dangerous. If you don't use a chainsaw correctly, it can be dangerous.

Why do I care that people that I don't know want to curtail a right so fundamental to the foundation of this country that its founders wrote it down second in the bill of rights? That can't be a serious question.

The democrats do want to take our guns away. Hell, a couple of them have even admitted it. See Senator Feinstein, the senior senator from Californistan.

They just won't come out and say it, so they infringe a little here, and infringe a little there. It's called incrementalism.

The whole "you don't need a _______" argument is BS. You don't determine what I need. I determine what I need.
Click to expand...
You are wrong there, Evil. Even rights guaranteed by the constitution have limits, as you have even admitted. This includes religious rights, free speech and even the right to bear arms. Assault weapons have been banned before. The government (ie. Lawmakers) places these limits for the betterment of overall society.

While you may personally want to open carry an RPG, laws can be constitutionally passed restricting your right to do so. While there is zero chance of ever passing a total ban, despite what a few far Lefties want, the recent rash of mass murders must be addressed. Eventually people will have had enough. I don't know what solution will be, but it will certainly include increased restrictions on the ability to easily produce mass murders.

Please note that I understand there is nothing that can be done to totally eliminate this risk, but simply to make it more difficult.
 
"Assault weapons" are a creation of the left, and are mostly scary looking guns that are far less lethal than the average hunting rifle. My deer rifle will go thru Class IIIA body armor like a hot knife thru butter. I bought my first high capacity pistol and my first AK-47 during the Clinton ban. That ban was less than worthless. And the FBI determined that the Clinton ban had no effect on crime. None.

The recent rash of mass murders is not in fact a rash of mass murders. It is a rash of reporting mass murders, specifically high profile ones. In the meantime Chicago has had 2771 murders this year (that's one third of the average yearly total for the WHOLE COUNTRY) and nobody gives a tin shit about that. That professor I mentioned from Northeastern has already proved that there has been no more than a 5% jump in mass shootings since 1950. And that can be accounted for by population.

This whole "eventually we have to do something" is also bunkum. It's a generic version of "Won't someone please think of the children!!!!!!!!!!" Because it relies on feelings rather than logic.

Even if you count suicides as gun violence, and humans as old as 24 as children, which the people on your side like to do because it conveniently pads the numbers of children dead with gangbangers age 18-24, that still leaves 80,700,000 people who didn't shoot anyone, nor were their guns used in crimes. I refuse to be punished for the actions of .01% of the gun owning population, most of whom are already criminals and perpetrate their crimes on criminals, in the name of some flighty concept of public good.

The supreme court has ruled on three separate occasions that the police are under no obligation to protect you. They carry firearms for their protection, not yours.

The CDC estimates between 600,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses occur yearly. It's hard to pin down because if you pull a gun and the guy runs away, you probably aren't going to call the police. Even going with the low number, you have 600,000 lives saved vice 33,000 lives lost. If that isn't for the public good, I don't know what is.

You do know that grenade launchers and anti- tank weapons are perfectly legal to own, right? I'm got an LAAW rocket launcher from Vietnam in my closet. Where you'd get ordinance for it I have no idea, but it's a fun conversation piece.

A holstered gun is not bothering anybody, and I submit to you if the sight of a handgun is that scary to you, perhaps you'd be better off staying at the house, because the world is far to scary a place for you to be roaming about. And while I have a better chance of getting hit by a drunk driver and struck by lightning in the same day than dying in a terrorist attack, studies show when civilians intervene in mass shootings, and yes, these do happen, the body count is one third of what it is when the police intervene.

And the reason for that is when ordinary people suddenly become shooters, other ordinary people are right there. The police on the other hand, have to be contacted, dispatched, and then work out a plan and THEN engage. You can shoot a lot of people while that happens.

As usual I end my rants with this: Criminals don't follow laws, laws don't melt metal, and disarming law abiding citizens to bring gun crimes down makes about as much sense as giving KFC gift cards to PETA members.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IrishPokerDog
EvilWayz said:
Criminals don't follow laws, laws don't melt metal, and disarming law abiding citizens to bring gun crimes down makes about as much sense as giving KFC gift cards to PETA members.
Click to expand...

Let's say that we passed a law that cut new gun availability (manufacture & import) by 1/3.

In 20 years, there would be less guns floating around Chicago and you would still have all the guns you want.
 
EvilWayz said:
The recent rash of mass murders is not in fact a rash of mass murders. It is a rash of reporting mass murders, specifically high profile ones. In the meantime Chicago has had 2771 murders this year (that's one third of the average yearly total for the WHOLE COUNTRY) and nobody gives a tin shit about that. That professor I mentioned from Northeastern has already proved that there has been no more than a 5% jump in mass shootings since 1950. And that can be accounted for by population.
Click to expand...

Even if you were to take the mass shooting numbers from the leftist propaganda machines, you are talking about several hundred murders over several years, that is out of roughly 15K murders per year, less than half of which involve firearms. It is nothing but stupid hype from those who want us stripped of rights.

But truth is not a value of the left, only egalitarianism, which they intend to bring about through great force of a central govt.

They do not care that less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in a crime. They do not care that most crime guns are already obtained illegally, and most shootings are done by people who are already criminals, and they mostly shoot other criminals. Chicago has all the gun control youn could ever want, and the police won't even go into the worse neighborhoods because it so dangerous. But they want the full force of the govt to come down upon us because we choose a means of self defense they don't approve of, even though we have never committed a crime.
 
EvilWayz said:
"Assault weapons" are a creation of the left, and are mostly scary looking guns that are far less lethal than the average hunting rifle. My deer rifle will go thru Class IIIA body armor like a hot knife thru butter. I bought my first high capacity pistol and my first AK-47 during the Clinton ban. That ban was less than worthless. And the FBI determined that the Clinton ban had no effect on crime. None.

The recent rash of mass murders is not in fact a rash of mass murders. It is a rash of reporting mass murders, specifically high profile ones. In the meantime Chicago has had 2771 murders this year (that's one third of the average yearly total for the WHOLE COUNTRY) and nobody gives a tin shit about that. That professor I mentioned from Northeastern has already proved that there has been no more than a 5% jump in mass shootings since 1950. And that can be accounted for by population.

This whole "eventually we have to do something" is also bunkum. It's a generic version of "Won't someone please think of the children!!!!!!!!!!" Because it relies on feelings rather than logic.

Even if you count suicides as gun violence, and humans as old as 24 as children, which the people on your side like to do because it conveniently pads the numbers of children dead with gangbangers age 18-24, that still leaves 80,700,000 people who didn't shoot anyone, nor were their guns used in crimes. I refuse to be punished for the actions of .01% of the gun owning population, most of whom are already criminals and perpetrate their crimes on criminals, in the name of some flighty concept of public good.

The supreme court has ruled on three separate occasions that the police are under no obligation to protect you. They carry firearms for their protection, not yours.

The CDC estimates between 600,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses occur yearly. It's hard to pin down because if you pull a gun and the guy runs away, you probably aren't going to call the police. Even going with the low number, you have 600,000 lives saved vice 33,000 lives lost. If that isn't for the public good, I don't know what is.

You do know that grenade launchers and anti- tank weapons are perfectly legal to own, right? I'm got an LAW rocket launcher from Vietnam in my closet. Where you'd get ordinance for it I have no idea, but it's a fun conversation piece.

A holstered gun is not bothering anybody, and I submit to you if the sight of a handgun is that scary to you, perhaps you'd be better of staying at the house, because the world is far to scary a place for you to be roaming about. ANd while I have a better chance of getting hit by a drunk driver and struck by lightning in th same day than dying in a terrorist attack, studies show when civilians intervene in mass shootings, and yes, these do happen, the body count is one third of what it is when the police intervene.

And the reason for that is when ordinary people suddenly become shooteres, other ordinary people are right there. THe police on the other hand, have to be contacted, dispatched, and then work out a plan and THEN engage. You can shoot a lot of people while that happens.

As usual I end my rants with this: Criminals don't follow laws, laws don't melt metal, and disarming law abiding citizens to bring gun crimes down makes about as much sense as giving KFC gift cards to PETA members.
Click to expand...
You are right that mass murders pale in comparison to suicides and inner city shootings. I'm not arguing that fact. However, since most people who vote don't live in the ghetto or would consider suicide, they don't see that as affecting them. However, they do send their kids to school, attend movies and go to work. When they see it affecting those places, I assure you something will be done. While I won't argue whether its logical or emotional, the "do nothing" response will not be acceptable to a large number of people. Most people also don't feel comfortable carrying so the "let's arm everyone" approach also won't cut it.

I can point to just as many studies that show gun restrictions (not elimination) can work but that won't change either of our minds. I also won't argue that there are many people who feel that carrying guns make them feel safer. I will claim that the majority of people would rather live in an environment where its not necessary to do so. So eventually, the fewer guns people will win out. It's inevitable as long as there continue to be these mass shootings happening (perception or reality). Agree or not, its coming eventually.

Guns don't scare me, people with guns do (see how I turned that around). I owned a chain of cell phone stores that had a rash of armed robberies. This being Texas, many of our young bucks wanted to bring their guns to work to help prevent that. Believe me, many of these employees are not the brightest with a GED at best. Now what do you think would have happened if one of my employees starting shooting at some thug that tried to rob us. One of three things, either the employee, the robber or a customer would have been killed. Either way, people would not have felt safe coming into that store again. They are instructed to just hand over the money and phones and let them go on their way, and insurance will take care of the losses. Now I did hire professional armed guards until the robberies stopped. The point is, while you may be quite proficient with armed conflict, the majority of people are not.

PS. As you know, having grenade launchers or antitank weapons without the ammunition is useless. They are merely for show. The point is that the government has legally restricted its citizens ability to use certain "arms" for harmful purposes.

PSS. No need to respond. I'm done with this iteration of this topic. I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
 
GatorTheo said:
Let's say that we passed a law that cut new gun availability (manufacture & import) by 1/3.

In 20 years, there would be less guns floating around Chicago and you would still have all the guns you want.
Click to expand...


I don't know why we'd do that but let's play along. I assume you are talking nationally, and not just for Illinois.

Guns don't rot, nor do people generally give them away, unless they are dead and unless you live in California, Massachusetts or New York you can legally leave your weapons, even Class 3 weapons, as inheritance. So the 350 million guns that are already here would still be here.

When polled, criminals currently incarcerated state that they get their firearms from 1) stealing them from family or friends 2) buying them on the street (Black Market) or 3) getting someone to buy them for them. It was not specified if these were "straw purchases" from dealers or more buying from family/friends or the streets.

That means the majority of crimes committed with guns are committed from the pool of 350 million, not new guns.
So all that would be happening is the price of guns would go up and sales of guns would go down, there would just be less legal guns per capita and the exact same number of illegal guns, keeping into account seizures during lawful arrests.
 
Incidentally to anyone that cares, if you pull the metric of "first world countries" out of the equation, the United States drops out of the top 100 to 111 out of 216. If you drop gun violence from the top 13 most violent cities in America, all of which are democratically controlled, We fall somewhere in the mid 200's out of 218.

The city with the most guns in america is a town in Texas called Plano. Their annual murder rate is .4 per 100,000, making it the safest place to live in the country.
 
French authorities have announced the closure of three mosques in Paris after chilling discoveries were made inside each location. In a statement released by the Seine-and-Marne Department, French police revealed they have seized 330 war-grade weapons and 7.62mm ammunition for a Kalashnikov rifles, and Islamic State propaganda videos from multiple mosques that have been raided, according to the New York Times.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2622046/pa...s-in-paris-after-chilling-discoveries-inside/
 
EvilWayz said:
Incidentally to anyone that cares, if you pull the metric of "first world countries" out of the equation, the United States drops out of the top 100 to 111 out of 216. If you drop gun violence from the top 13 most violent cities in America, all of which are democratically controlled, We fall somewhere in the mid 200's out of 218.

The city with the most guns in america is a town in Texas called Plano. Their annual murder rate is .4 per 100,000, making it the safest place to live in the country.
Click to expand...

Ha! Plano is a VERY affluent suburb of Dallas with outstanding schools. Interesting factoid.
 
goldmom said:
Ha! Plano is a VERY affluent suburb of Dallas with outstanding schools. Interesting factoid.
Click to expand...
I've spent a lot of time in Plano. They are more likely to catch an Ebola virus than to need a gun for protection. It is Texas though so it makes for good conversation while watching Trevor play soccer.
 
badselectioncommittee said:
Even rights guaranteed by the constitution have limits, as you have even admitted. This includes religious rights, free speech and even the right to bear arms. Assault weapons have been banned before. The government (ie. Lawmakers) places these limits for the betterment of overall society..
Click to expand...

I do not think he was arguing that an enumerated right is free from regulation. He WAS arguing that the regulation of an enumerated right has to pass a very high standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilWayz
badselectioncommittee said:
I've spent a lot of time in Plano. They are more likely to catch an Ebola virus than to need a gun for protection. It is Texas though so it makes for good conversation while watching Trevor play soccer.
Click to expand...

Stood on the sidelines many sub freezing times watching daughter play in Plano. Never needed a gun thankfully.
 
Most hardcore "concealed carry" types are totally affluent, and live in places where they are literally in next to NO danger whatsoever.. Yet they are obsessed with their CARRY RIG or whatever "tactical" crap they gently caress when they're at home under the covers on the evenings their wives aren't giving it up. They talk smack about home protection, and say things like “I feel sorry for the SOB who breaks into my house” but meanwhile they live in gated communities.

I mean I understand if you're like a single mother in a chithole ghetto, but lets be real- 99% of those “concealed carry” dudes are just “gun porn” jagoffs who want to carry a gun around to feel tough.

Not that I'm against it, in fact I own lots of guns, but lets just be real.
 
CommieGator said:
Most hardcore "concealed carry" types are totally affluent, and live in places where they are literally in next to NO danger whatsoever.. Yet they are obsessed with their CARRY RIG or whatever "tactical" crap they gently caress when they're at home under the covers on the evenings their wives aren't giving it up. They talk smack about home protection, and say things like “I feel sorry for the SOB who breaks into my house” but meanwhile they live in gated communities.

I mean I understand if you're like a single mother in a chithole ghetto, but lets be real- 99% of those “concealed carry” dudes are just “gun porn” jagoffs who want to carry a gun around to feel tough.

Not that I'm against it, in fact I own lots of guns, but lets just be real.
Click to expand...

You say all this like it is a bad thing, Commie.
 
CommieGator said:
Most hardcore "concealed carry" types are totally affluent, and live in places where they are literally in next to NO danger whatsoever.. Yet they are obsessed with their CARRY RIG or whatever "tactical" crap they gently caress when they're at home under the covers on the evenings their wives aren't giving it up. They talk smack about home protection, and say things like “I feel sorry for the SOB who breaks into my house” but meanwhile they live in gated communities.

I mean I understand if you're like a single mother in a chithole ghetto, but lets be real- 99% of those “concealed carry” dudes are just “gun porn” jagoffs who want to carry a gun around to feel tough.

Not that I'm against it, in fact I own lots of guns, but lets just be real.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a bunch of hyperbole, anger, and general bullshit this post was, you fail.
 
CommieGator said:
Most hardcore "concealed carry" types are totally affluent, and live in places where they are literally in next to NO danger whatsoever..
Click to expand...

Even if this is true, and I do not think it is true, I am not sure why you consider this to be an argument supporting...for what?
 
EvilWayz said:
You've been to my house Commie. And nobody I know that lives in a gated community votes Republican. Not in the Ville anyways.
Click to expand...

Heh. That's cause the gated communities in G-ville are full of professors. In Jax you better believe they're all Republicans.
 
MJWilliamson said:
Even if this is true, and I do not think it is true, I am not sure why you consider this to be an argument supporting...for what?
Click to expand...

Actually, the reverse is far more disturbing in my opinion....we have elites with armed security details, riding around behind bullet proof glass, living in gated communities telling the rest of us what we need and don't need for self-defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martha81
CommieGator said:
Most hardcore "concealed carry" types are totally affluent, and live in places where they are literally in next to NO danger whatsoever.. Yet they are obsessed with their CARRY RIG or whatever "tactical" crap they gently caress when they're at home under the covers on the evenings their wives aren't giving it up.
Click to expand...

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. If you think when we get open carry on Florida I won't be rolling around town in one of THESE right here, you better think again.

2lm5b3a.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martha81
About 10-15 years ago a new gun law was passed that inadvertently allowed open carry. I saw several of those being sported around town for a couple of weeks (until the law was changed again).
 
Anyone that says they open carry with a long gun for self defense is a moron. And here's why:

The effective range of an AK-47 is around 300 yards. The effective range of an AR-15 is debatable, the Marines generally consider 500 yards to be a starting point and some good shooters can shoot out to 800.

Unless you are shooting down a straight street, there is very little need for a weapon that shoots that far. THat's why swat teams generally use lower powered, frangible rounds.

So let's say you see a mugger robbing an old lady, so you snatch your trusty black rifle off your shoulder and zero in on him. But wait. You are now in violation of safety rule four.

"BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT LIES BEHIND IT."

So unless you are a super tactical Navy Seal Delta Ranger sniper with 800 confirmed kills, you can't take the shot, because if you miss, you've just sent a 55 grain chunk of lead whizzing through the air at around 3100 fps, a round that is notorious for ricochet if you are using standard green tip ball ammo. So you're basically carrying around 9 pounds of rifle for no good reason.

Unless you are hunting or fighting off an armed insurrection, it is in my opinion you are an attention whore who is ruining it for the rest of it.

Having said that, There was a reason for all that long gun carrying last year, they were doing it as a form of political protest, which is perfectly acceptable. BUT, now that they got what they wanted, which was open carry of pistols, that long gun carry should cease, for the reasons I outlined above.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that little thirty cal probably wouldn't cause too much of a ruckus. Rather have that new MPX Sig Sauer makes though. THere's a reason why dynamic entry teams prefer sub machine guns.
 
EvilWayz said:
Also that idiot in read kneeling at low ready = BAD IDEA.
Click to expand...
Don't talk about DJE like that.

Keep in mind they were protesting at a meeting of the mothers of the Sandy Hook massacre. Totally necessary IMO, as you never know what those moms are packing.
 
Last edited:
EvilWayz said:
Yeah that little thirty cal probably wouldn't cause too much of a ruckus. Rather have that new MPX Sig Sauer makes though. THere's a reason why dynamic entry teams prefer sub machine guns.
Click to expand...

That or the CZ Scorpion would be heck of a SBR
 
GatorGray said:
Mothers of Sandy Hook were meeting in Texas?
Click to expand...
Sure. We have very nice restaurants here.

The latest skirmish in the fight between the First and Second Amendments arrived this past weekend with an incident in Dallas, Texas. A group of four women, members of a post–Sandy Hook group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, found themselves trapped inside a restaurantwhen a group of demonstrators from Open Carry Texas decided to stage a little something-something in the parking lot. The 40-odd members of the Open Carry group knew the gun control group was meeting at the Blue Mesa Grill, so they moseyed over and unpacked their semi-automatic rifles. The protestors posed for photographs and waited for the four MDA members to finish their meeting, until, according to ThinkProgress, “the group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.” Police made no arrests because, according to their spokeswoman, “There were no issues that we are aware of. Texas law does not prohibit the carrying of long guns.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back