Current or modern politics in the United States

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

he talked about two guns in particular AR-15 and AK-47 two guns did I really don't want my neighbors to have to protect their home knowing that those two guns have an effective range of 400-600 meters. If you want to have a gun you can still get shotgun, or a 9 mm, or even a 380 I don't Rob people and I don't want to catch bullets that should be reserved for robbers

A shotgun is all you really need for home defense, and you can pick up a perfectly good one for about 300 bucks at any store that sells guns.

The people who stockpile assault weapons worry about huge gangs of crazed people looting after some sort of apocalyptic social breakdown, but if that happens, they'll have more important things to worry about than someone stealing their TV - like where their next meal is coming from.

That said, that little outburst by O'Rourke is going to hurt the democrats plenty. It plays right into what the pro-gun people have been saying about the liberal Democrats' intent all along.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

That said, that little outburst by O'Rourke is going to hurt the democrats plenty. It plays right into what the pro-gun people have been saying about the liberal Democrats' intent all along.

The messed up thing about it is I don't know if staying with the Republicans will help you keep your guns I have a sneaking suspicion that they going to do that red flag law come hell or high water and if it takes Republicans betraying gun holders so be it.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by movieman88

(1) Define "Openly Alt-Right" in regards to him please, I am not familar with him. Being a hard 2A supporter is not Alt-Right.

(2) A death threat is stating intent of instigating or aggressive malicious intent to harm someone who poses no danger to you. Cain's statement was self defensive in nature.
If someone is trying to break down your door and you tell them your gun is ready if they enter your house is that a malicious wrongful death threat?

Beto's mandatory gun buy backs would get thousands of people killed both those defending their property from this tyrannical confiscation and those who will later be raped and murdered because they didn't have the tools to defend themselves. FAR more people will die from this then would die yearly from long arms used in mass shootings which are a monumental minority of gun crime.

Gotta love the hypocrites in this thread who jump on every single microscopic parallel between Trump & Hitler and automatically assume they have parallel evil intent but praise gun confiscation which Hitler also did but refuse to consider that not every Democrat who wants to disarm the population has noble intent.

The AR-15 is the spree killers first choice murder weapon. It is a semi-automatic with options for a large magazine - you can squeeze off a lot of rounds very quickly. It can use 5.56mm NATO ammunition which is quite penetrative, designed to kill a man wearing a steel helmet and at long range - your bullet can quite easily pass straight through the home invader who is your lawful target and travel through half a dozen houses behind him before being stopped by an innocent person three streets away. For murdering 20 six year old children and six teachers in less than two minutes it is a very suitable tool. For home defence, there are better alternatives.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

The messed up thing about it is I don't know if staying with the Republicans will help you keep your guns I have a sneaking suspicion that they going to do that red flag law come hell or high water and if it takes Republicans betraying gun holders so be it.

I wouldn't be surprised. Let's face it, the prime goal of many people in government these days is not to serve the people, but to acquire power and more power. Witness the eternal renewal of the "Patriot" Act.

Red Flag laws can be used to suppress the speech of those deemed radical on any part of the political spectrum - whether it be Black Panthers or Klansmen, White Nationalists or La Raza sympathizers. Say something the government deems "offensive and hate-mongering", and a team of police with automatic weapons and body armor may show up to relieve you of your guns, whether or not you actually had the constitutional right to say it - another way to sidestep the protections the constitution is supposed to provide. You may cheer if this happens to your "enemies" but what about when it eventually happens to you - as it must?

Every law they pass is eventually abused in the service of ego and power, I don't see this turning out any differently.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by movieman88

(1)
Gotta love the hypocrites in this thread who jump on every single microscopic parallel between Trump & Hitler and automatically assume they have parallel evil intent but praise gun confiscation which Hitler also did but refuse to consider that not every Democrat who wants to disarm the population has noble intent.

Whatever the merits of your statement. It does not illustrate hypocrisy. If you wish to throw epithets around, please use them correctly.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

For murdering 20 six year old children and six teachers in less than two minutes it is a very suitable tool. For home defence, there are better alternatives.

There you go again, being reasonable.

One of the characteristics of the reactionary sentiment is that "reason" is viewed as effete and effeminate, that to think about things is emasculating.

This thread of thinking is surprisingly revived in the 21st century. It was a feature of anti-enlightenment thinking in the 18th and 19th, but its a weird historical curiosity in the 21st. As an anachronism, it depends of fantasy "if I'm alone fifty miles from the police on my civil authorities" -- well, that describes a few people today, but really just a very few.

In the 18th century frontier, a homesteading family might legtimately fear that they'd have to fight off an attack (and of course, they have to do so with weapons that might manage one round per minute)

Gun fanciers are more imaginative than reasoning, and they've constructed an imaginary alt-history in which they defend Little House on the Prairie with a machine gun against the Apache . . . all well and good as a fantasy, except the weapon is quite real, and when it gets used it ain't to fight "Apaches".

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Gun fanciers are more imaginative than reasoning, and they've constructed an imaginary alt-history in which they defend Little House on the Prairie with a machine gun against the Apache . . . all well and good as a fantasy, except the weapon is quite real, and when it gets used it ain't to fight "Apaches".

You need to bone up on your American history. Apaches are a southwestern tribe, and Little House on the Prairie is in Minnesota. The Indians that used to live around there were Sioux. There was a Sioux uprising in 1862 when the idiot Indian agent didn't give the Sioux their federally mandated supplies, but I don't think Charles Ingalls ever had to shoot any Sioux Indians.

My sister had those books, and I can recall reading one or two out of boredom, Laura Ingalls did talk about seeing the defeated Indians ride past her place on the way to exile, IIRC.

Those books are now deemed to be "racist", by the way, by the same sorts of people who squirm in horror at the thought of gunfights between white settlers and Indians.

I bet there was many a settler and wagon driver and cavalry trooper whom, beset by rampaging Indians, would have considered an AR-15 dropped into his lap a gift straight from the gods.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The AR-15 is the spree killers first choice murder weapon. It is a semi-automatic with options for a large magazine - you can squeeze off a lot of rounds very quickly. It can use 5.56mm NATO ammunition which is quite penetrative, designed to kill a man wearing a steel helmet and at long range - your bullet can quite easily pass straight through the home invader who is your lawful target and travel through half a dozen houses behind him before being stopped by an innocent person three streets away. For murdering 20 six year old children and six teachers in less than two minutes it is a very suitable tool. For home defence, there are better alternatives.

As mentioned earlier a pump-action shotgun is a much better option. Even highly trained people have trouble hitting targets with a handgun in stressful situations. As for AR-15s and AK-47s, one is too likely to blow one's kids away with all the bullets even if you do take out intruders.

Too many kids are accidentally killed when they start playing with loaded guns that have been left around. I did hear one ex-burglar say that the last thing he wanted to hear was the distinctive click of a pump action shotgun. "Nobody wants to get maimed."

[movieman88]

A major point no one is talking about is the profoundly dangerous precedent it would set for the government to be able to take your property regardless of what it is and that is besides it being morally reprehensible. It would be among the biggest examples of governmental overreach since slavery.

If they agreed to pay back the EXACT price you payed for the gun then maybe I could see it being faintly acceptable but there is zero chance in hell they will pay people back what their ARs and AKs are actually worth and even if they did pay back the receipt price, the people who didn't keep their original receipts, lost them or purchased their guns privately will still get fucked over.

Look at this gun video channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre/videos
He has nearly 900 videos, the vast majority of them are with semi automatics and the vast majority of those are ARs/AKs variants. That is hundreds of guns that cost many thousands of dollars each.

If you think it's acceptable to force him under penalty of prison, potential prison rape or death to give up his property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) in exchange for a pathetic fraction of what they are worth when he has never done anything illegal or threatening with that property or otherwise you are a despicable human being.

And that is without getting into the fact that he owns a gun store and will almost certainly be put out of business if he was no longer able to sell the most popular weapons in the United States today.

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

1 - As for AR-15s and AK-47s, one is too likely to blow one's kids away with all the bullets.

2 - Too many kids are accidentally killed when they start playing with loaded guns that have been left around.

1 - "with all the bullets" If your using it right it's not blindly spraying bullets, these aren't machine guns these are semi automatics. The point of them is to get fast follow up shots, NOT to spray bullets.

2 - So we should condemn the population to be helpless because of a handful of irresponsible jackasses?

Originally Posted by bigtrain45

1 - No one made a big stink about the assault weapons ban in the US when it was passed back in the 90's

2 - not even the NRA

3 - Why are people so angry now about the prospect of a fresh ban now,

4 - when the weapons have no practical use except for war and mass killings?

5 - Is there a line? Where do you draw it? Bazookas? RPG's? Machine guns?

1 - Sure they did and that ban made the community with these weapons vastly larger then it was at the time and we saw many companies get destroyed and lives ruined because of it.

2 - Because they are incompetent bastards who make bad deals.

3 - Because...
(A) The new ban proposals are vastly worse and more unreasonable then the 90s ban.
(B) The 90s ban proved banning assault weapons doesn't put a dent in crime statistics.
(C) We have more reason then ever to be prepared to defend ourselves from a semi tyrannical government with almost every Democratic candidate pushing for socialism and encouraging/defending violent groups like Antifa/BLM.
(D) If we give these up, it's just a matter of time before they come for Shotguns and handguns.

Bottom line, you can not deny 327.2 MILLION American citizens the moral absolute right to self defense and the tools required for it because of less then a hundred psychotics a year doing evil things with those tools. (yes I know there is more then a hundred mass shootings/killings a year but FAR less then a hundred using "assault weapons")

4 - Do you know how many competitions use these weapons? How many countless people use them for recreation? For hunting? They have plenty of practical use. Watch some of the videos on that video channel I linked to.

5 - Machine guns you can still get but you must past a FBI background check and pay 200 tax to the NFA. I am fine with that. I personally draw the line at explosives.

I say all of that as someone who doesn't currently own guns or plan to own them in the future. I am in a position where I doubt I will need guns for self defense, my concern is for the specific people who will need them like my Grandparents who got broken into 6-8 times before they got burglar bars which most people can't afford.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by movieman88

[FONT=Verdana]A major point no one is talking about is the profoundly dangerous precedent it would set for the government to be able to take your property regardless of what it is and that is besides it being morally reprehensible. It would be among the biggest examples of governmental overreach since slavery.

If you had bothered to read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which outlines the process for the seizure of private property, you might have saved yourself the time it took to write this silly rant.