PDA

View Full Version : General Politics DHS places and order for 7k select-fire rifles for personal defense


pr_capone
01-29-2013, 04:56 AM
On 7 June 2012, the Department of Homeland security drew up a proposal to purchase 7k select-fire rifles in a 5.56x45mm caliber. In that proposal, the rifles are described as follows:

"DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required." (Section C(PDW)ver 7.pdf - available in the below link)

Suitable for personal defense in close quarters or maximum concealment, eh? Sounds like a kind of situation one might encounter in their own home and faced with an intruder.

It seems as if in the eyes of the government these are select-fire personal defense tools in the hands of one of their agents. In the hands of a good law abiding citizens they are semi-automatic assault rifle mass killing machines.

Link:

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0 (https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0)

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/341230_277753949021104_1024359608_o.png

A Salt Weapon
01-29-2013, 05:34 AM
Some animals are more equal than others.
Posted via Mobile Device

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 06:00 AM
Hellfire missiles for everyone!!1!

pr_capone
01-29-2013, 06:22 AM
Hellfire missiles for everyone!!1!

Reading isn't one of your strengths... is it?

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 06:56 AM
Reading isn't one of your strengths... is it?

Your "point", such that it is, is that it's hypocritical for the government to have armaments not available to the general public.

It's a stupid argument, ftr. Protecting yourself against some methhead home invader in the armpit that is Wichita doesn't require the same firepower as a SEAL team raid in Abbottabad.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 07:14 AM
And why does the government get to jail people, but when I do it it's "imprisonment"?

Huh? Hm?

notorious
01-29-2013, 07:16 AM
Your "point", such that it is, is that it's hypocritical for the government to have armaments not available to the general public.

It's a stupid argument, ftr. Protecting yourself against some methhead home invader in the armpit that is Witchita doesn't require the same firepower as a SEAL team raid in Abbottabad.

It isn't the same firepower.

"Select Fire"

Look it up and get back to us when you are more educated on the subject.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 07:20 AM
It isn't the same firepower.

"Select Fire"

Look it up and get back to us when you are more educated on the subject.

This is nonsense.

Every citizen should have the same access to the same weaponry as DHS officials, I assume, is your argument.

notorious
01-29-2013, 07:27 AM
This is nonsense.

Every citizen should have the same access to the same weaponry as DHS officials, I assume, is your argument.

No, it isn't.

You can get access if you have every single facet of you history checked by ATF.

God forbid that a perfect citizen should own an automatic weapon.

:facepalm:

You guys have lost this round of gun control. Stop your bitching and go back to your rooms and finish your homework.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 07:29 AM
Didn't exactly answer my question, did you.

Should every citizen should have the same access to the same firearms as DHS officials.

LiveSteam
01-29-2013, 07:38 AM
Your "point", such that it is, is that it's hypocritical for the government to have armaments not available to the general public.



Look here dummy. This type of ammo is not allowed in our own ARMED FORCES & IS BANNED BY THE UN.
It is for 1 thing & 1 thing only. To be used against America.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 07:49 AM
This is nonsense.

Every citizen should have the same access to the same weaponry as DHS officials, I assume, is your argument.

No, dickhead. But it's rather hard for DHS to claim they have them for "personal defense" then turn around and say you can't have them for "personal defense".

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 07:52 AM
But it's rather hard for DHS to claim they have them for "personal defense" then turn around and say you can't have them for "personal defense".

Why?

htismaqe
01-29-2013, 07:55 AM
Why?

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/10/01/1225781/527730-60-years-of-communist-china.jpg

stonedstooge
01-29-2013, 07:56 AM
FEinstien said yesterday that in her bill, people will not be allowed to have weapons like the military has. Does she not know that the assault rifles sold to the general public are not like the rifles used by the military?

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 07:58 AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/10/01/1225781/527730-60-years-of-communist-china.jpg

*swoon* /Drek

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 08:13 AM
It isn't the same firepower.

"Select Fire"

Look it up and get back to us when you are more educated on the subject.

I'm aware of what select fire means.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 08:48 AM
Why?

Why? Are you funcking serious?

CoMoChief
01-29-2013, 09:04 AM
Didn't exactly answer my question, did you.

Should every citizen should have the same access to the same firearms as DHS officials.

Yes....here's why

What is the DHS for? It's not to fight terrorism. Govt has gotten completely and utterly out of control. Al-Qaeda isn't going to go into your local Applebees and blow up the joint.

The ONLY reason for govt to pass gun control on its citizens is so there is no last-resort resistance for when everything goes to complete hell and the govt suspends the constitution and declares martial law.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 09:06 AM
Yes....here's why

What is the DHS for? It's not to fight terrorism. Govt has gotten completely and utterly out of control. Al-Qaeda isn't going to go into your local Applebees and blow up the joint.

The ONLY reason for govt to pass gun control on its citizens is so there is no last-resort resistance for when everything goes to complete hell and the govt suspends the constitution and declares martial law.

The INS (I refuse to call it ICE) and border security say hi.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 09:19 AM
Yes....here's why

What is the DHS for? It's not to fight terrorism. Govt has gotten completely and utterly out of control. Al-Qaeda isn't going to go into your local Applebees and blow up the joint.

The ONLY reason for govt to pass gun control on its citizens is so there is no last-resort resistance for when everything goes to complete hell and the govt suspends the constitution and declares martial law.

Ever heard of the Coast Guard, Secret Service, INS, Customs, Federal Protective Service?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:21 AM
[IMG]

Seems reasonable.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:21 AM
Why? Are you funcking serious?

Yes. Why.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 09:39 AM
Yes. Why.

I tend to forget you think your life less important than some politician

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:40 AM
I tend to forget you think your life less important than some politician

*I* am just some douchenozzle in Missouri. Nobody gives a shit about me.

People that work the DHS can and do have legitimate targets on them. They are charged with keeping the peace, often against internal, domestic terrorist threats.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 09:41 AM
I tend to forget you think your life less important than some politician

More with the "you face the same threats as the president" nonsense, Pete?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:43 AM
More with the "you face the same threats as the president" nonsense, Pete?

And why oh why do my two daughters get zero Secret Service protection?

Can you answer me that, Mr. President?

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 09:49 AM
More with the "you face the same threats as the president" nonsense, Pete?

And why oh why do my two daughters get zero Secret Service protection?

Can you answer me that, Mr. President?

I care one hell of a lot more about my family than any DHS agent or even the president. You donít, thatís on you but goes a long way to explain your posts here.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 09:50 AM
And why oh why do my two daughters get zero Secret Service protection?

Can you answer me that, Mr. President?

Secret Service protection for everyone!!!

And, while we're at it, police state enforcement of every law 100% of the time!!

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:51 AM
I care one hell of a lot more about my family than any DHS agent or even the president. You donít, thatís on you but goes a long way to explain your posts here.

Should every citizen should have the same access to the same firearms as DHS officials?

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 09:51 AM
I care one hell of a lot more about my family than any DHS agent or even the president. You don’t, that’s on you but goes a long way to explain your posts here.

So you need an automatic weapon to protect your family? Sounds like someone has shitty aim....

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 09:51 AM
Yes....here's why

What is the DHS for? It's not to fight terrorism. Govt has gotten completely and utterly out of control. Al-Qaeda isn't going to go into your local Applebees and blow up the joint.


That's a pretty stupid statement.

The ONLY reason for govt to pass gun control on its citizens is so there is no last-resort resistance for when everything goes to complete hell and the govt suspends the constitution and declares martial law.

This is even stupider though.

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 09:52 AM
So you need an automatic weapon to protect your family? Sounds like someone has shitty aim....

Never fired an automatic weapon before, have you?
Do you think one lines itís sights up on the target automatically also?

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 09:54 AM
Should every citizen should have the same access to the same firearms as DHS officials?

I can already have access to the same firearms the DHS has if Iím willing to go through the expense and hassle of the licensing process.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 09:58 AM
Never fired an automatic weapon before, have you?

Possibly. Not sure whether my cousin's Type 56 was full or semi.

Do you think one lines itís sights up on the target automatically also?

Yeah, I've shot IDPA..... I know how target acquisition works.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:00 AM
See, I'm not terribly opposed to that.

If somebody has a demonstrated number of years (just to totally pull a number out of my ass, let's say 15 years, starting at 18 years of age) of abiding by the law, has to go through enough of a good degree of expense and a hard degree of extra licensing for the more serious firearms, and can accord to having the firearm and bullets purchased for it traced back to the purchaser, than I can see a way that these things can justify their existence in society.

That's a far cry from what some would prefer, which is simply being able to walk into a Walmart and walk out. But I think it'd be very sensible way of screening people out.

CoMoChief
01-29-2013, 10:13 AM
Ever heard of the Coast Guard, Secret Service, INS, Customs, Federal Protective Service?

The amt of ammo and guns that are being spent by the federal govt does open any eyes to any of you?

:rolleyes:

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 10:13 AM
Possibly. Not sure whether my cousin's Type 56 was full or semi.

Pretty sure if youíd have fired it on full automatic youíd remember it.
Spray and pray keeps the bad guys heads down but without some sort of solid mount to stabilize it hitting anything is more luck than skill.

Yeah, I've shot IDPA..... I know how target acquisition works.

What distances were you shooting at?

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:24 AM
More with the "you face the same threats as the president" nonsense, Pete?

Does it matter if I face the same threats? Sorry if I value the lives of myself and my family just as much if not more than the President.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:24 AM
*I* am just some douchenozzle in Missouri. Nobody gives a shit about me.

People that work the DHS can and do have legitimate targets on them. They are charged with keeping the peace, often against internal, domestic terrorist threats.

Remember that if God forbid someone should ever threaten you or your loved ones.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:24 AM
Does it matter if I face the same threats?

Absolutely.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:25 AM
Remember that if God forbid someone should ever threaten you or your loved ones.

The odds are basically ****ing zero that I will ever need a semiauto's firepower to pretect myself.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:26 AM
Should every citizen should have the same access to the same firearms as DHS officials?

What does it matter? You act like if someone has the same thing as DHs they will automatically become a criminal and what not. You're a fucking idiot whose entire argument is based on blaming an inanimate object for someone breaking the law.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:27 AM
The odds are basically ****ing zero that I will ever need a semiauto's firepower to pretect myself.

the firepower of a semi-auto? You're a fucking idiot. Just shutup now.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:28 AM
Absolutely.

It may matter to you but then again you aren't the one who is going to defend me so I think I will decide the value of my life, thank you.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:31 AM
So you need an automatic weapon to protect your family? Sounds like someone has shitty aim....

You are obviously another idiot when it comes to firearms.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:31 AM
Never fired an automatic weapon before, have you?
Do you think one lines itís sights up on the target automatically also?

And the target stands still for you as well...come on now, we are talking about Liberal Utopia!

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:37 AM
What does it matter? You act like if someone has the same thing as DHs they will automatically become a criminal and what not. You're a ****ing idiot whose entire argument is based on blaming an inanimate object for someone breaking the law.

This is a non-response to what I asked.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:37 AM
so what we have deduced in this thread is so intersting:

Mrs. Direckshun has a crystal ball and knows exactly what you need to defend yourself and that you should value your life and the lives of your loved ones less than some elected doucebag

Cave Johnson thinks criminals stand still for you to shoot them therefore no need for an "automatic" weapon

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:38 AM
This is a non-response to what I asked.

No, it's a direct response to the idiotic implications you have made on this subject time and time again

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:38 AM
the firepower of a semi-auto? You're a ****ing idiot. Just shutup now.

Also a non-response.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:39 AM
It may matter to you but then again you aren't the one who is going to defend me so I think I will decide the value of my life, thank you.

The value of your life is not determined by the power of firearms you carry with you.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:40 AM
Also a non-response.

Explain what the "firepower" of a semi-auto means, will you?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:40 AM
Mrs. Direckshun has a crystal ball and knows exactly what you need to defend yourself

You don't need a semiauto. Period.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:41 AM
Explain what the "firepower" of a semi-auto means, will you?

The capacity to create a lot of death really easily, and very quickly.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:41 AM
The value of your life is not determined by the power of firearms you carry with you.

Really? So then why the fuck do you care if choose to have a semi-automatic weapon or not then?

And while your at it, douchebag, why don't you tell us all what determines the value of our lives and the lives of our loved ones?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:42 AM
Really? So then why the **** do you care if choose to have a semi-automatic weapon or not then?

Because they can create a ton of death really quickly and really easily.

And while your at it, douchebag, why don't you tell us all what determines the value of our lives and the lives of our loved ones?

That's a discussion for another thread, and probably another forum.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:42 AM
You don't need a semiauto. Period.

Really? Why? Tell us, dipshit, what crystal ball do you have that says how many bullets I need to protect myself against a threat you have no fucking idea of what may be.

tell us....

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:43 AM
Because they can create a ton of death really quickly and really easily.



That's a discussion for another thread, and probably another forum.

Death quickly and easily? Do you realize trained cops..yes cop(S) popped off 45 rounds at a perp and only hit him 19 times?

You're a fucking idiot.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:43 AM
Really? Why? Tell us, dipshit, what crystal ball do you have that says how many bullets I need to protect myself against a threat you have no ****ing idea of what may be.

tell us....

Because the odds of you ever running into a situation where you need to get off that much ammunition that quickly is in the neighborhood of zero.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:44 AM
Death quickly and easily? Do you realize trained cops..yes cop(S) popped off 45 rounds at a perp and only hit him 19 times?

All the more reason for those things to be out of commission.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:45 AM
Because the odds of you ever running into a situation where you need to get off that much ammunition that quickly is in the neighborhood of zero.

I don't give a flying fuck about your odds. I am not willing to risk the lives of myself or my family based on your fucking odds. All it takes is the one time, asshole. You don't want to defend yourself that's fine with me. But get the fuck out of my business.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:46 AM
All the more reason for those things to be out of commission.

Yeah, so when the scared woman empties her 6-shooter maybe she will get her attacker(s) to wait while she re-loads???

You're such a brainy dumbfuck

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:46 AM
I am not willing to risk the lives of myself or my family based on your ****ing odds. All it takes is the one time, asshole. You don't want to defend yourself that's fine with me. But get the **** out of my business.

Owning a semiauto does basically nothing to help protect the lives of you and your family.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:48 AM
Yeah, so when the scared woman empties her 6-shooter maybe she will get her attacker(s) to wait while she re-loads???

You're such a brainy dumb****

For every one of these hypotheticals you concoct (along with R8rs), I could easily concoct one where the criminals simply have more firepower than you have.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:48 AM
Owning a semiauto does basically nothing to help protect the lives of you and your family.

This is a classic example of just how stupid you are. What if 2 or 3 people break into my house? I know, you think 6 bullets is enough, right?

KC Dan
01-29-2013, 10:48 AM
Direck's idea of what the gov't should allow citizens to own:

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:50 AM
For every one of these hypotheticals you concoct (along with R8rs), I could easily concoct one where the criminals simply have more firepower than you have.

If we follow your stupid logic the criminal will ALWAYS have more firepower.

Which is all the reason more I should be allowed to have what you don't want to have then now isn't dumbass? You just blew a hile in your own argument you fucktard!! ROFL

Fish
01-29-2013, 10:50 AM
Because they can create a ton of death really quickly and really easily.



Let's ban all dangerous things...

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:50 AM
This is a classic example of just how stupid you are. What if 2 or 3 people break into my house? I know, you think 6 bullets is enough, right?

If we're talking pure hypotheticals, then nothing's really ever enough.

Go ahead, grab your gun of choice. I will just give each of those criminals the same gun.

The key is to fund and strengthen your local law enforcement so they can get there really quickly, and hope you hold them off with what you have in the mean time. That's your only surefire defense against any number of hypotheticals you or I could devise.

Chocolate Hog
01-29-2013, 10:52 AM
And why does the government get to jail people, but when I do it it's "imprisonment"?

Huh? Hm?

Fucking dumbass im surprised you dont ask goverment to wipe your ass for you while you make your shitty threads.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:52 AM
If we follow your stupid logic the criminal will ALWAYS have more firepower.

That doesn't follow at all.

But if you're just making shit up in hypotheticals, then you're simply never going to have enough firepower to repel the 16 automatic-bearing ninjas breaking into your bedroom window for the explicit purpose of murdering you.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:52 AM
If we're talking pure hypotheticals, then nothing's really ever enough.

Go ahead, grab your gun of choice. I will just give each of those criminals the same gun.

The key is to fund and strengthen your local law enforcement so they can get there really quickly, and hope you hold them off with what you have in the mean time. That's your only surefire defense against any number of hypotheticals you or I could devise.

Well unfortunately for you I don't base the value of my life on hypo's but rather preperation.

Unlike you, Dipshit, the rest of us don't have a crystal ball that tells us what threat will present itself and what exactly we would need to defend ourselves from said threat.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 10:54 AM
That doesn't follow at all.

But if you're just making shit up in hypotheticals, then you're simply never going to have enough firepower to repel the 16 automatic-bearing ninjas breaking into your bedroom window for the explicit purpose of murdering you.

yeah, I mean it's a real stretch to say that your home might be invaded by 2 or 3 people as opposed to 1.

It's a real stretch to say that the criminal(s) that enter my house aren't going to stand still while I shoot them so it doesn't take more than 6 rounds.


JFC, you are a complete idiot on this subject.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:56 AM
Well unfortunately for you I don't base the value of my life on hypo's but rather preperation.

Preparation... for hypotheticals.

Unlike you, Dipshit, the rest of us don't have a crystal ball that tells us what threat will present itself and what exactly we would need to defend ourselves from said threat.

You sound like one of those dudes from Doomsday Preppers.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:59 AM
yeah, I mean it's a real stretch to say that your home might be invaded by 2 or 3 people as opposed to 1.

It's a real stretch to say that the criminal(s) that enter my house aren't going to stand still while I shoot them so it doesn't take more than 6 rounds.

The odds are, if you fire off a few rounds, they're going to get the **** out while they can.

The lesser odds are that they come for you.

The basically nonexistant odds are that they come for you in waves, instantly, and with unrelenting firepower that ordinary firearms would be rendered ineffective.

Unless you're goddamn head of state. Then the game changes.

But I'm willing to bet that, like me, you're just a douchenozzle that nobody cares about.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:00 AM
Preparation... for hypotheticals.



You sound like one of those dudes from Doomsday Preppers.

Yea, it's a real hypo to talk about someone's house being invaded.

And you sound like and uninformed douche, but what else is new.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:01 AM
The odds are, if you fire off a few rounds, they're going to get the **** out while they can.

The lesser odds are that they come for you.

The basically nonexistant odds are that they come for you in waves, instantly, and with unrelenting firepower that ordinary firearms would be rendered ineffective.

Unless you're goddamn head of state. Then the game changes.

But I'm willing to bet that, like me, you're just a douchenozzle that nobody cares about.

JFC, you got it all figured out. The criminal will do that, and will do that but won't do this and won't do that.

I'm not willing to be the lives of my family and myself on your bullshit odds, asshole.

In fact, I'm done with this. You are an insanely idiotic person.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:02 AM
Yea, it's a real hypo to talk about someone's house being invaded.

And you sound like and uninformed douche, but what else is new.

I'm just saying, I'm willing to bet you don't have a shelter under your home to rush into in case biological warfare started spreading. Nor, I'm guessing, will you start investing your money to do just that.

The odds of needing a semiauto to protect yourself at home are hardly better.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:04 AM
JFC, you got it all figured out. The criminal will do that, and will do that but won't do this and won't do that.

I'm not willing to be the lives of my family and myself on your bullshit odds, asshole.

In fact, I'm done with this. You are an insanely idiotic person.

I'm not saying what they will do. I'm saying what they're likely to do.

They're not likely to charge further into an armed home and challenge the homeowner to a duel.

Of course, they might, but unless you're just that much better than them at marksmanship, your only real reliable defense to that is a well-funded, well-trained police force that responds quickly.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:06 AM
I'm not saying what they will do. I'm saying what they're likely to do.

They're not likely to charge further into an armed home and challenge the homeowner to a duel.

Of course, they might, but unless you're just that much better than them at marksmanship, your only real reliable defense to that is a well-funded, well-trained police force that responds quickly.

Yes you are saying what they will do. You can't guarantee a damn thing and your odds can suck my cock because all it takes is once for your precious odds to wrong.

you let me worry about what my best defense is, ok? And as long as I am not thretening you then it's none of your business.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:09 AM
you let me worry about what my best defense is, ok? And as long as I am not thretening you then it's none of your business.

Pete, I'm not even sure if you're emotionally stable enough to be allowed to drive a tractor, much less handle a firearm.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:13 AM
Pete, I'm not even sure if you're emotionally stable enough to be allowed to drive a tractor, much less handle a firearm.

I don't give a fuck what you think. you obviously don't understand dick about firearms so I don't think you need to even be opening your mouth on the topic

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:16 AM
Just the idea that you need multiple semiautos on your bedside stand in the fear that multiple criminals armed-to-the-teeth storm your home looking for blood...

...seems right at home on Doomsday Preppers.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:17 AM
Just the idea that you need multiple semiautos on your bedside stand in the fear that multiple criminals armed-to-the-teeth storm your home looking for blood...

...seems right at home on Doomsday Preppers.

Just the idea that you think you know for a fact what the future holds seems right at home with a dumbass

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:22 AM
Just the idea that you think you know for a fact what the future holds seems right at home with a dumbass

I have no idea what the future holds.

But there's no need to arm yourself to the teeth in the off chance that an absurdly inconceivable event will occur.

Any more than you'll need carry cyanide pills with me if/when you go on a ship cruise in the case you're overtaken by brutal pirates.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:22 AM
I'm just saying, I'm willing to bet you don't have a shelter under your home to rush into in case biological warfare started spreading. Nor, I'm guessing, will you start investing your money to do just that.

The odds of needing a semiauto to protect yourself at home are hardly better.

Damn dude... you're wandering pretty far off the reservation here.

We could come up with countless things that people don't need, which have the potential for harm. But need is a pretty subjective claim to make when you're speaking on behalf of someone else's safety...

Saying we don't need personal firearms because we also don't need biological warfare bunkers under every home is just crazytalk.... Even if the odds are 100000 to 1 that I'll never need to use my weapon for self defense, I'm still going to keep mine around in case I happen to find the odds against me.

The odds are pretty high that you won't need your spare tire this week. So are you going to remove it from the trunk now?

KC Dan
01-29-2013, 11:24 AM
Pete, I'm not even sure if you're emotionally stable enough to be allowed to drive a tractor, much less handle a firearm.damn...

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:25 AM
Damn dude... you're wandering pretty far off the reservation here.

We could come up with countless things that people don't need, which have the potential for harm. But need is a pretty subjective claim to make when you're speaking on behalf of someone else's safety...

Well we could easily extend this conversation into grenade launchers then.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:25 AM
Well we could easily extend this conversation into grenade launchers then.

If silly hyperbola is your goal... yes....

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:26 AM
I have no idea what the future holds.



Exactly. Which makes the rest of your argument moot.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:26 AM
By the way, I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd amendment, as Fish implied in post #87.

I just see no need for semiautomatics.

Pete's defense is "well you never know, there could be numerous criminals, armed to the teeth, storming my house looking to kill. Also, the police don't exist and the sky rains bananas."

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:27 AM
If silly hyperbola is your goal... yes....

I'm extending the argument -- if we need semiautos on our bedside stands because something virtually inconceivable could happen, I see no reason why that can't extend to grenade launchers.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:27 AM
Exactly. Which makes the rest of your argument moot.

But there's no need to arm yourself to the teeth in the off chance that an absurdly inconceivable event will occur.

Any more than you'll need carry cyanide pills with you if/when you go on a ship cruise in the off, off, off case you're overtaken by brutal pirates.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:30 AM
By the way, I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd amendment, as Fish implied in post #87.

I just see no need for semiautomatics.

Pete's defense is "well you never know, there could be numerous criminals, armed to the teeth, storming my house looking to kill. Also, the police don't exist and the sky rains bananas."

You knwo, you're right. 3 guys break into my house and I will:

A: ask them to stand still so I can use 2 bullets each on them
B: dial 911 and ask them to wait patiently while the Police take 30 minutes to get ehre


You don't see a need for sem-auto's because you are ignorant to firearms which you have demonstarted multiple times.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:32 AM
By the way, I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd amendment, as Fish implied in post #87.

I just see no need for semiautomatics.

Pete's defense is "well you never know, there could be numerous criminals, armed to the teeth, storming my house looking to kill. Also, the police don't exist and the sky rains bananas."

It's nobody's responsibility to prove to you the need for semiautos.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:32 AM
But there's no need to arm yourself to the teeth in the off chance that an absurdly inconceivable event will occur.

Any more than you'll need carry cyanide pills with you if/when you go on a ship cruise in the off, off, off case you're overtaken by brutal pirates.

Again, it's not for you to decide what I need to defend myself and my family. You worry about you and let me worry about me.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:33 AM
I'm extending the argument -- if we need semiautos on our bedside stands because something virtually inconceivable could happen, I see no reason why that can't extend to grenade launchers.

You're "Extending the argument" because talking about the argument in non-hyperbolic terms fails to provide any support for your opinion.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:35 AM
You knwo, you're right. 3 guys break into my house and I will:

A: ask them to stand still so I can use 2 bullets each on them
B: dial 911 and ask them to wait patiently while the Police take 30 minutes to get ehre

Less than 10 minutes, actually (http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html). And KC's is one of the slowest in the country.

You're just concocting absurd situations as justification for stocking yourself to the teeth with guns.

That's pretty much the definition of paranoid.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:36 AM
You're "Extending the argument" because talking about the argument in non-hyperbolic terms fails to provide any support for your opinion.

I don't see any conceivable difference between a semiauto and a grenade launcher in this scenario. Please delineate the material difference as to make my comparison obsolete.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:37 AM
It's nobody's responsibility to prove to you the need for semiautos.

I disagree.

If we're talking about instruments that make indiscriminate killing incredibly easy to achieve, we do need to justify their usage and/or legality.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:37 AM
Less than 10 minutes, actually (http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html). And KC's is one of the slowest in the country.

You're just concocting absurd situations as justification for stocking yourself to the teeth with guns.

That's pretty much the definition of paranoid.

You're right. Home invasions never happen. Let alone by multiple people who are armed.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:43 AM
I don't see any conceivable difference between a semiauto and a grenade launcher in this scenario.

Then you're either ignorant or attempting to be ignorant.

KC Dan
01-29-2013, 11:43 AM
I disagree.

If we're talking about instruments that make indiscriminate killing incredibly easy to achieve, we do need to justify their usage and/or legality.No, no we don't

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:44 AM
No, no we don't

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Nonsense. We can regulate gun ownership.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:46 AM
I disagree.

If we're talking about instruments that make indiscriminate killing incredibly easy to achieve, we do need to justify their usage and/or legality.

We live in a world full of instruments that make indiscriminate killing incredibly easy. Sorry. Acceptable loss justified by our desired lifestyles.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 11:47 AM
I don't see any conceivable difference between a semiauto and a grenade launcher in this scenario. Please delineate the material difference as to make my comparison obsolete.

You're an idiot

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 11:48 AM
I'm just saying, I'm willing to bet you don't have a shelter under your home to rush into in case biological warfare started spreading. Nor, I'm guessing, will you start investing your money to do just that.

The odds of needing a semiauto to protect yourself at home are hardly better.

I think this is a little extreme direckshun. There is no need to ban semi-automatic handguns so people can defend themselves at home. I have worked and known cops that never shot their weapon in 20 years outside of training but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have them just in case.

Now where I would agree with you on is the stockpiling of weapons. There is no need for a regular Joe to have an arsenal. But I don't know how you stop that.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:53 AM
Nonsense. We can regulate gun ownership.

We've already been doing so for decades....

And in doing so, gun violence overall has seen steady decline and is currently at the lowest overall level in 30+ years.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 11:53 AM
What distances were you shooting at?

Short to intermediate. Maybe 15-20 yards, max

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:54 AM
We live in a world full of instruments that make indiscriminate killing incredibly easy. Sorry. Acceptable loss justified by our desired lifestyles.

While I agree with that equation, my assessment of where exactly that market lies differs from yours.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 11:56 AM
I don't see any conceivable difference between a semiauto and a grenade launcher in this scenario. Please delineate the material difference as to make my comparison obsolete.

The kill zone of a grenade is about 16 feet and probably would destroy your house and anything in that zone. Most self-defense shootings come within 1-5 feet range.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:56 AM
I think this is a little extreme direckshun. There is no need to ban semi-automatic handguns so people can defend themselves at home. I have worked and known cops that never shot their weapon in 20 years outside of training but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have them just in case.

Well law enforcement is different. I believe that off-duty officers should be subject to far more lenient standards.

Now where I would agree with you on is the stockpiling of weapons. There is no need for a regular Joe to have an arsenal. But I don't know how you stop that.

A national database is an idea, or at least a history of previous background checks.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:57 AM
We've already been doing so for decades....

WHAT?

But I was told we can't infringe the right to bear arms!

And in doing so, gun violence overall has seen steady decline and is currently at the lowest overall level in 30+ years.

And while I welcome that trend, and pray it continues, that doesn't change the fact that we are embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors.

Fish
01-29-2013, 11:58 AM
The kill zone of a grenade is about 16 feet and probably would destroy your house and anything in that zone. Most self-defense shootings come within 1-5 feet range.

Did you really have to type that?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:58 AM
The kill zone of a grenade is about 16 feet and probably would destroy your house and anything in that zone. Most self-defense shootings come within 1-5 feet range.

Right -- my point is that if we are to pile semiautos into our homes in the off, off, off chance that they are the only thing that could save us, I don't see why a grenade launcher could not also be subject to the same logic.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 11:59 AM
You don't need a semiauto. Period.

Yeah, you had me up to this point. You're on your own from here.

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 12:00 PM
Short to intermediate. Maybe 15-20 yards, max

Sounds like fun, I'll have to find an event and check it out.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Right -- my point is that if we are to pile semiautos into our homes in the off, off, off chance that they are the only thing that could save us, I don't see why a grenade launcher could not also be subject to the same logic.

Bullshit,. Your argument is so full of fail, lacks so much in fact, logic and reality that you are resorting to trying to compare a handgun to a grenade launcher.

Do us all a favor an dstick licking Obama's ass.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Yeah, you had me up to this point. You're on your own from here.

LMAO

Alrighty.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Cave Johnson thinks criminals stand still for you to shoot them therefore no need for an "automatic" weapon

Show me where I said shooting stationary paper targets is analogous to a moving home intruder?

Btw, I'd be willing to bet a semi-auto shotty with an 8-10 shell mag is the gold standard of home defense.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Bullshit,. Your argument is so full of fail, lacks so much in fact, logic and reality that you are resorting to trying to compare a handgun to a grenade launcher.

Do us all a favor an dstick licking Obama's ass.

Seems reasonable.

Radar Chief
01-29-2013, 12:04 PM
The odds are basically ****ing zero that I will ever need a semiauto's firepower to pretect myself.

Exactly where is this extra ďfirepowerĒ coming from? A bullet doesnít care whether itís leaving the barrel of a semi-auto or not, itíll arrive with the same impact regardless.

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 12:04 PM
Sounds like fun, I'll have to find an event and check it out.

It and 3-gun (AR, shotgun, pistol) are a ton of fun.

Fish
01-29-2013, 12:05 PM
WHAT?

But I was told we can't infringe the right to bear arms!



And while I welcome that trend, and pray it continues, that doesn't change the fact that we are embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors.

Well.... we're embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors in countless categories.

Heart Disease
Obesity
Vehicle Death
Suicide
Education
Health Care
.
.
.
.

Hell, the US is barely in the top 30 in the list of life expectancy by country. It would be nice if we could fix all of it.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:06 PM
Well.... we're embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors in countless categories.

Heart Disease
Obesity
Vehicle Death
Suicide
Education
Health Care
.
.
.
.

Hell, the US is barely in the top 30 in the list of life expectancy by country. It would be nice if we could fix all of it.

I advocate action on all those fronts, rather than resigning to mediocrity.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:14 PM
Show me where I said shooting stationary paper targets is analogous to a moving home intruder?

Btw, I'd be willing to bet a semi-auto shotty with an 8-10 shell mag is the gold standard of home defense.

I'd bet it would be a pump action as opposed to semi-auto

Fish
01-29-2013, 12:15 PM
I advocate action on all those fronts, rather than resigning to mediocrity.

Good. Then your next goal should be some type of prioritization, according to the amount of damage done by each category. Because currently your priorities don't make much sense.

pr_capone
01-29-2013, 12:18 PM
WHAT?

And while I welcome that trend, and pray it continues, that doesn't change the fact that we are embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors.

Are semi automatic rifles the reason why it is bad compared to our western neighbors?

Seeing as there were a grand total of 323 murders attributed to these guns while blunt instruments accounted for more than double that number... I don't see how one can argue that banning them will accomplish much, if anything, towards the goal of reducing homicides and crime. Especially when the '94 ban did little to nothing on that same front.

If semi auto rifles are not the reason why we are embarrassingly awful... then it stands to reason that there is no need to ban them at all. Especially not when the Department of Homeland security says they are suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

The bolded part... would you not agree that a person's home would constitute personal defense in close quarters & maximum concealment being needed? This is their definition... not mine.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:22 PM
Good. Then your next goal should be some type of prioritization, according to the amount of damage done by each category. Because currently your priorities don't make much sense.

I prioritize them by which one is being discussed.

This one is up for discussion. So here I am.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 12:25 PM
Did you really have to type that?

Probably not.

Right -- my point is that if we are to pile semiautos into our homes in the off, off, off chance that they are the only thing that could save us, I don't see why a grenade launcher could not also be subject to the same logic.

Well you stated if you need semi-auto gun by your bedside that should extend to grenade launchers. That is silly

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:26 PM
Are semi automatic rifles the reason why it is bad compared to our western neighbors?

Seeing as there were a grand total of 323 murders attributed to these guns while blunt instruments accounted for more than double that number... I don't see how one can argue that banning them will accomplish much, if anything, towards the goal of reducing homicides and crime. Especially when the '94 ban did little to nothing on that same front.

If semi auto rifles are not the reason why we are embarrassingly awful... then it stands to reason that there is no need to ban them at all. Especially not when the Department of Homeland security says they are suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

The bolded part... would you not agree that a person's home would constitute personal defense in close quarters & maximum concealment being needed? This is their definition... not mine.

This is a good post.

I advocate lots of different measures of gun control -- many of which were instituted by the President (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268973). My personal preferences against semiautos would be to reduce mass shootings.

As for your question... I would say that if we are going to permit semiautos at all (which, of course, we are), then home defense is obviously a defensible type of use for them.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:28 PM
Well you stated if you need semi-auto gun by your bedside that should extend to grenade launchers. That is silly

I'll admit it's an attempt to slippery-slope the conversation the other way, as these conversations so frequently attempt to boil any sort of gun control to "they want our guns."

Fish
01-29-2013, 12:37 PM
This is a good post.

I advocate lots of different measures of gun control -- many of which were instituted by the President (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268973). My personal preferences against semiautos would be to reduce mass shootings.

As for your question... I would say that if we are going to permit semiautos at all (which, of course, we are), then home defense is obviously a defensible type of use for them.

The loss from mass shootings, while being a very passionate and saddening event, is not an often enough occurrence to justify a complete banning. It's nowhere close. If that's the main reasoning for banning all semiautos, then it falls horribly short.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:37 PM
I'll admit it's an attempt to slippery-slope the conversation the other way, as these conversations so frequently attempt to boil any sort of gun control to "they want our guns."

You know, I have thought long and hard about what is irritating me about this whole thing. It is not the "we want to take your guns" but this consistant insulting of the American people that somehow this has something to do with hunting and even personal self-defense. The Anti-Gun crowd loves to bring up hunting, "you don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer" and personal self-defense from common criminals and ignor the actual reason we have the 2nd.

In which case, given what the 2nd was truly for, which is to have well regulated militia to protect the state then yes, semi-automatics are indeed not only acceptabe but well sutited moreso than the shotgun crap we keep hearing from this Admin.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:42 PM
Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:46 PM
Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.


Well it sure as fuck wasn't for hunting as your bitch boys in the WH want to keep implying

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:47 PM
Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

Text of the 2nd Amendment

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.


so if the militia isn't made up of private citizens then who???

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:50 PM
Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

mi∑li∑tia

/məˈliSHə/





Noun




1.A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2.A military force that engages in rebel activities.


LMAO

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:51 PM
so if the militia isn't made up of private citizens then who???

A police force and a military force.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:52 PM
A police force and a military force.

No dumbass, that would the military or police. My God man, you don't even know WTF a Miliita is!

pr_capone
01-29-2013, 12:52 PM
This is a good post.

I advocate lots of different measures of gun control -- many of which were instituted by the President (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268973). My personal preferences against semiautos would be to reduce mass shootings.

As for your question... I would say that if we are going to permit semiautos at all (which, of course, we are), then home defense is obviously a defensible type of use for them.

I'm glad you saw it that way.

I am in complete and total agreement that there needs to be stricter gun control. In looking through the list when it first came out... I would like clarification on a few points but overall I have no problems with the 23 edicts.

I strongly believe that there is one point that needs to be addressed and that is education. When the 2nd was penned, fathers would teach their kids about gun safety and marksmanship. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Now... anyone regardless of their level of knowledge can pick up a gun and ammo without knowing the first thing about it's safe use and storage. This is a far more dangerous situation for everyone than a trained and responsible individual keeping a semi auto rifle.

Where I draw the line of what is acceptable (to me) in terms of gun control:

* forcing me to register individual weapons with the authorities (there is no need for them to have an elaborate database detailing what type/caliber guns they have)
* limiting magazine capacity (I believe you and I will heavily disagree here)
* banning semi-auto rifles/handguns
* confiscation of said guns (ala Sen. Feinstein's interview about Mr. and Mrs. America turning in their guns)

pr_capone
01-29-2013, 12:53 PM
Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

Actually... that is exactly what it means.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC ß 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areó
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

KC Dan
01-29-2013, 12:54 PM
Where I draw the line of what is acceptable (to me) in terms of gun control:

* forcing me to register individual weapons with the authorities (there is no need for them to have an elaborate database detailing what type/caliber guns they have)
* limiting magazine capacity (I believe you and I will heavily disagree here)
* banning semi-auto rifles/handguns
* confiscation of said guns (ala Sen. Feinstein's interview about Mr. and Mrs. America turning in their guns)
Sign me up on your team!:thumb:

petegz28
01-29-2013, 12:54 PM
Actually... that is exactly what it means.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC ß 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areó
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Dude, he doesn't even know what a Militia is...how do you expect him to comprehend this?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 01:00 PM
I'm glad you saw it that way.

I am in complete and total agreement that there needs to be stricter gun control. In looking through the list when it first came out... I would like clarification on a few points but overall I have no problems with the 23 edicts.

I strongly believe that there is one point that needs to be addressed and that is education. When the 2nd was penned, fathers would teach their kids about gun safety and marksmanship. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Now... anyone regardless of their level of knowledge can pick up a gun and ammo without knowing the first thing about it's safe use and storage. This is a far more dangerous situation for everyone than a trained and responsible individual keeping a semi auto rifle.

Where I draw the line of what is acceptable (to me) in terms of gun control:

* forcing me to register individual weapons with the authorities (there is no need for them to have an elaborate database detailing what type/caliber guns they have)
* limiting magazine capacity (I believe you and I will heavily disagree here)
* banning semi-auto rifles/handguns
* confiscation of said guns (ala Sen. Feinstein's interview about Mr. and Mrs. America turning in their guns)

Let's get to that list really quick, or at least the first item on it (we can save ourselves a debate over magazine size as I've already had it a few times, nobody is suggesting the semi-auto ban I'd prefer, and nobody is proposing a buyback).

A database on guns would actually point us to the small percentage of gun retailers that are derelict/negligent/criminal in their responsibility to sell guns to responsible citizens.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 01:00 PM
so if the militia isn't made up of private citizens then who???

Notice the words "well regulated".

Also the framers gave the President and Congress ultimate authority over the militia.

The framers in Philadelphia gave Congress and the president shared responsibility for the ultimate control of the militia. They also gave state governments important responsibilities and powers in organizing and training militias, while at the same time taking ultimate authority from the states.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power to "declare War," "to raise and support Armies,"to "maintain a Navy," to make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." Furthermore, Article I declares that the states may not "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace." Article II makes the president of the United States the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" and "of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." These provisions also contain two important limitations. Congress can only appropriate money for the military for two years,and the states retain the power to appoint all militia officers and to train the militia, provided this training complies with "the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Taken together, these provisions contemplated two levels of military protection for the new nation: (1) a national army created and governed solely by Congress and ultimately under the authority of the president in his capacity as commander in chief, and (2) a system of state militias, essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to "federalization" at the command of the president. Part of that regulation included the idea that the national government had the power and the obligation to provide arms for the local militias. As Rufus King explained at the Convention, "arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury." Thus, the defense of the United States would rely on both the state militias and the standing army.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 01:02 PM
Notice the words "well regulated".

Also the framers gave the President and Congress ultimate authority over the militia.

I don't know what that has to do with any point I made about the 2nd not being about hunting or personal self-defense?

Easy 6
01-29-2013, 01:04 PM
I don't see any conceivable difference between a semiauto and a grenade launcher in this scenario. Please delineate the material difference as to make my comparison obsolete.

ROFL

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 01:05 PM
I don't know what that has to do with any point I made about the 2nd not being about hunting or personal self-defense?

edit: nevermind

pr_capone
01-29-2013, 01:09 PM
A database on guns would actually point us to the small percentage of gun retailers that are derelict/negligent/criminal in their responsibility to sell guns to responsible citizens.

I disagree that forcing everyone to register their weapons in order to catch a small percentage of gun retailers is a good idea.

It reminds me of the argument on CP a while back about forcing everyone to have a voter ID in order to catch the small percentage of voter fraud. To inconvenience (and catalogue) the majority in order to stop something in the minority isn't right. I also sincerely doubt that any governing body with that kind of information would use that registration solely for it's intended purpose of catching bad sellers.

Another, and far less intrusive to the individual citizen, way of accomplishing that same goal would be to force FFLs to keep close inventory of all weapons and be subject to random audit by the ATF or whatever other governing body you want to put in charge of that.

CoMoChief
01-29-2013, 01:13 PM
I guess the real question is...how to banning semi-autos make the American people safer?

It doesn't.

Time to move along knee jerk liberals.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 01:17 PM
I disagree that forcing everyone to register their weapons in order to catch a small percentage of gun retailers is a good idea.

It reminds me of the argument on CP a while back about forcing everyone to have a voter ID in order to catch the small percentage of voter fraud. To inconvenience (and catalogue) the majority in order to stop something in the minority isn't right.

It is if the consequences warrant it.

In person voter fraud is so rare, prosecutable cases only happen dozens of times a decade. Not exactly the stuff that demands vigorous federal reform.

That's world's different from gun violence, which is ridiculously high in American compared to all of our western neighbors.

Another, and far less intrusive to the individual citizen, way of accomplishing that same goal would be to force FFLs to keep close inventory of all weapons and be subject to random audit by the ATF or whatever other governing body you want to put in charge of that.

I support this measure. The problem is that the ATF has been effectively limited to checking in on FFLs once every ten years.

My preference is that this would happen regularly and frequently.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 04:49 PM
Just the idea that you need multiple semiautos on your bedside stand in the fear that multiple criminals armed-to-the-teeth storm your home looking for blood...

...seems right at home on Doomsday Preppers.

I wonder how the "Preppers" in NJ fared against hurricane Sandy vs. all the people we saw out in the street crying because the Fed Gov hadn't come and taken care of them?

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 04:55 PM
It is if the consequences warrant it.

In person voter fraud is so rare, prosecutable cases only happen dozens of times a decade. Not exactly the stuff that demands vigorous federal reform.

That's world's different from gun violence, which is ridiculously high in American compared to all of our western neighbors.



I support this measure. The problem is that the ATF has been effectively limited to checking in on FFLs once every ten years.

My preference is that this would happen regularly and frequently.
Yep them outlaws are not obeying the law, we need to pass more laws and maybe they will follow those. FUCKOFF SERIOUSLY~

notorious
01-29-2013, 04:57 PM
Are we going to need to start a "Gun Control Dipshit Tears are Delicious" Thread?


LMAO

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 04:59 PM
I disagree that forcing everyone to register their weapons in order to catch a small percentage of gun retailers is a good idea.


Historically, registration precedes gun confiscation.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 05:02 PM
Historically, registration precedes gun confiscation.

Well of course. You have to know who has them in order to take them, don't you?

petegz28
01-29-2013, 05:24 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/428316_576600435700843_1837422080_n.jpg

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 05:26 PM
Well of course. You have to know who has them in order to take them, don't you?

Yup!

petegz28
01-29-2013, 05:26 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/250777_567704933258728_1147148015_n.jpg

stonedstooge
01-29-2013, 05:29 PM
Hasn't there already been some gun control enacted? Try to buy rifle shells lately?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 05:57 PM
I wonder how the "Preppers" in NJ fared against hurricane Sandy vs. all the people we saw out in the street crying because the Fed Gov hadn't come and taken care of them?

What does that have to do with gun control, again?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 05:57 PM
Are we going to need to start a "Gun Control Dipshit Tears are Delicious" Thread?

LMAO

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 05:58 PM
Hasn't there already been some gun control enacted?

Gun control is not a binary state. There's degrees of it.

petegz28
01-29-2013, 06:02 PM
What does that have to do with gun control, again?

You tell me? You were the one that brought up Preppers.