Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

so, um... guns


  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

#201 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,132 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:27 PM

MeOmYo, I completely agree that the adult owner should be held criminally responsible for accidents that happen with their guns when minors get hold of them.

Also for the record, I'm not promoting the complete disarming of the citizenry. Not that I think it's a bad thing, but rather because the genie is out of the bottle and it would be impossible. I'm just saying that it's gotten out of hand.

Tim, respectfully, if the government decided to come for you to take your guns (never going to happen, IMO), I'm pretty sure you couldn't stop them no matter how many you have. All the small arms in the world won't be worth a fart in the wind when the armored vehicles and choppers show up.

#202 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,132 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:27 PM

Shoot the mother fuckers


:lol: This is why I love you Jack.

#203 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,957 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:32 PM

MeOmYo, I completely agree that the adult owner should be held criminally responsible for accidents that happen with their guns when minors get hold of them.

Also for the record, I'm not promoting the complete disarming of the citizenry. Not that I think it's a bad thing, but rather because the genie is out of the bottle and it would be impossible. I'm just saying that it's gotten out of hand.

Tim, respectfully, if the government decided to come for you to take your guns (never going to happen, IMO), I'm pretty sure you couldn't stop them no matter how many you have. All the small arms in the world won't be worth a fart in the wind when the armored vehicles and choppers show up.


I'll concede that it's unlikely, brother. But not impossible. I don't expect we'll agree on this, but I view history as being somewhat on my side.

And I do see where the folks who see differently than I do are coming from. I just think the problem is less about the tool, and more about the users.

#204 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,264 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 06:14 PM

Lola, I don't think my position is any more fearful than buying insurance, or owning a first aid kit, or anything else we might own and hope never to have to use.

I view it as prudent. There's a long and infamous history of governments which disarm their citizens going on to treat them very, very poorly.


Except for the fact that first aid kits and insurance aren't weapons designed for killing.

Altho the insurance end of that might be debatable. :funny1:

#205 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,957 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 06:32 PM

Except for the fact that first aid kits and insurance aren't weapons designed for killing.

Altho the insurance end of that might be debatable. :funny1:


:lol:

They aren't. Though I don't see how that ties in with the premise that I'm living in fear because I own guns, and my response that I have other stuff in my life which I hope never to need to use to be prepared for certain eventualities.

#206 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:59 PM

Isn't it interesting how some people view things as relative (such as what is or is not an assault weapon) when it suits them, but when relativity doesn't fit a person's personal view, they act as if the situation is strictly black or white.

Inconsistency is the only thing that seems to be consistent.

#207 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:05 PM

sweet blahg

what's the point?

#208 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,957 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:08 PM

Isn't it interesting how some people view things as relative (such as what is or is not an assault weapon) when it suits them, but when relativity doesn't fit a person's personal view, they act as if the situation is strictly black or white.

Inconsistency is the only thing that seems to be consistent.


Honestly not sure who you're referring to here. Please clarify.

#209 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:10 PM

pretty sure he's just trolling, as always

#210 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:11 PM

OK... TASB seems to be trying to make a point as to what is or is not an assault weapon.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding him, that's a possibility... but I think he's trying to make the point that it isn't a simple yes or no question that is written in stone.

For all I know, the two pictures of what appear to be assault weapons above could be water pistols.

It isn't the look that counts. It's the amount of potential damage the weapon is capable of.

#211 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:12 PM

pretty sure he's just trolling, as always


uhh... and this post is... informative? enlightening? entertaining?

hmm... trolling?

#212 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:18 PM

OK... TASB seems to be trying to make a point as to what is or is not an assault weapon.

That's right. they are ALL assault weapons if that is the intent. If you want to ban, or highly regulate "assault weapons" then you have to go across the board.

I thought I made this clear dozens of times, but apparently it is not sinking in.

The weapons I posted photos of, are all weapons. Real guns. It just so happens that by spec, they are all pretty much the same (except barrel length). They are all .22 caliber. They are all semi-automatic. They are all modifiable. The term "Assault weapons"
doesn't mean shit. It means nothing at all unless you like catchy phrases and are not really familiar with firearms.

#213 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:21 PM

actually, that's the point I was making.

The way the weapon looks doesn't mean a thing. The specs are what counts and you did not give that information.

It's becoming clear to me that you are more interested in playing "gotcha" than you are in the exchange of meaningful information.

#214 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,125 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:22 PM

pretty sure he's just trolling, as always

Pretty sure? :rotf:

#215 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:25 PM

additionally, I think that any semi-automatic weapon capable of more than 6 rounds in a clip is an assault rifle, so therefore all the guns you pictured above should be illegal.

#216 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:26 PM

Pretty sure? :rotf:


good thing your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

#217 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:27 PM

according to the wiki page (I understand this is not all that trustworthy sometimes) the gubmint has gone as far as stating makes and models it believes are assault weapons. Essentially banning guns like the AK, Uzi, ARs etc.

some of the guns I stated earlier are the remington model 7400

http://onlineattictr...easures-249.jpg

and winchester model 100 which is very similar to the above. these are classified as hunting rifles but are full capable of doing the same thing as the gubmints list of "assault weapons" along with 100 other models they will not ban. the winchester model 100 has the M1A action and will accept M1 30 round clips. The attempt of the gubmint to make people feel safe is laughable by people that know guns becuase they know the laws stop nothing. so you don't get one on the ban list but there are 100 others that will do the same thing that are not on there. As TASB said, "assault weapon" is a meaningless tagname

#218 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:28 PM

I'm not the one who keeps casting out the "assault weapons" lure as some sort of catch all. The point I was making is that the look of a gun, or its spec, (based on what is already legal) does not make one a an assault weapon and one not. They are ALL assault weapons if that is the intent of their use.

Is this clear now?

That was a "gotcha" at you. Because you're the one who keeps up this media/political talking point of "assault weapons". It doesn't mean anythign, dude. Nothing. Nathan. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

#219 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:30 PM

additionally, I think that any semi-automatic weapon capable of more than 6 rounds in a clip is an assault rifle, so therefore all the guns you pictured above should be illegal.


So you want to make a basic hunitng rifle illegal because it can be modified to hold a mag with more than 6 rounds? Thats almost every fucking gun out there dude. And now we've gotten to the meat of it. You'll say "I dont want to take away all guns, just assault weapons." As it turns out, you want all guns removed from civilians.

Thanks for coming clean. My work here is finished.

#220 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:32 PM

according to the wiki page (I understand this is not all that trustworthy sometimes) the gubmint has gone as far as stating makes and models it believes are assault weapons. Essentially banning guns like the AK, Uzi, ARs etc.

some of the guns I stated earlier are the remington model 7400

http://onlineattictr...easures-249.jpg

and winchester model 100 which is very similar to the above. these are classified as hunting rifles but are full capable of doing the same thing as the gubmints list of "assault weapons" along with 100 other models they will not ban. the winchester model 100 has the M1A action and will accept M1 30 round clips. The attempt of the gubmint to make people feel safe is laughable by people that know guns becuase they know the laws stop nothing. so you don't get one on the ban list but there are 100 others that will do the same thing that are not on there. As TASB said, "assault weapon" is a meaningless tagname


So you think the best course of action is to just allow anyone to carry them all because the government isn't able to be 100% thorough?

Eh... you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think that's the wisest course of action.

#221 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:33 PM

So you want to make a basic hunitng rifle illegal because it can be modified to hold a mag with more than 6 rounds? Thats almost every fucking gun out there dude. And now we've gotten to the meat of it. You'll say "I dont want to take away all guns, just assault weapons." As it turns out, you want all guns removed from civilians.

Thanks for coming clean. My work here is finished.


If you illegally modify a gun, then you've commited a crime.

If it's legal when you buy it, then you're the criminal for modifying it, not the gun shop for selling it.

Anyone can make a car, does that mean it's street legal?

I can buy Sudafed, but if I make meth out of it, that's illegal... ya get it?

#222 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:34 PM

noted

thanks

#223 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:35 PM

holy jumpin jesus, since when did criminals follow laws?

#224 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:40 PM

wow... so because criminals don't follow the law anyway, we shouldn't have laws?

how does that make any sense?

#225 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:44 PM

I guess we better get back to basics, there are three main reasons for laws and incarceration

1. as a deterrent
2. as rehabilitation
3. as protection

anyway... got shit to do... can't sit around here educating you all day.

#226 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:47 PM

oh, and sorry for being articulate and using the words assault weapon... guess articulation bothers you. I chose not to use the word gun, because assault weapon is more specific... yeah... sorry for partying bracef.

#227 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:47 PM

:lmao:

#228 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,125 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:52 PM

Posted Image

#229 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:03 PM

I almost forgot punishment as a reason... so there's 4 actually (but not everyone agrees with this reason)

I'll clarify what I mean by protection... keeping criminals off the street protects non-criminals.

there's probably more, actually... I'm not a criminal justice expert... but those are the main 4 reasons I remember.

#230 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:28 PM

Posted Image

#231 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,638 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 04:38 AM

Okay, so it's quite obvious that many, many kinds of guns can be modified to accept a 30+ round clip and also many of those guns can be modified to be an automatic or at least semi-automatic with a 3 round burst.

What would be the issue with banning the manufacturing of high volume clips outside of government contracts? Right now anyone can go to the www and buy a 30 round clip for their 22. What do you think the black market would be like for such clips if they are no longer available for purchase in the store or online?

Do any of the pro-gun people in this thread feel confident they could easily engineer their own 30 round magazines for their guns if they were no longer commercially available for purchase?

#232 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:40 AM

I wouldn't need to manufacture my own. The black market would have them available if I really wanted one. Just because the government takes away the right for civilians to have them, will not change the ability of their procurement. That's why I say if we have to lay ours down, so must the govt.

There is no reasoning behind creating a law that only some have to follow. How is it right, just or even sane to suggest that the government can be above the very laws they exact on the rest of us?

Furthermore, people who have weapons that are meant for military use got them from the military or government. It will not stop anything at all. It will not change anything.

Just as a heads up, a clip is easy to make. It's essentially just metal wire and a springs. A magazine is a bit more difficult to replicate, but certainly not impossible or even extremely difficult.

#233 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,638 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:37 PM

well, TASB

I surely can't own a Sherman Tank

:rolling:

know where I can find one on the black market? 2 for 500 hundred grand? :lol:

#234 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,125 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:45 PM



#235 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,264 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 06:59 PM

For all I know, the two pictures of what appear to be assault weapons above could be water pistols.


That's why I didn't rise to the question either. WTF does the appearance of the weapon have anything to do with it? :dunno:

I have seen air-guns dressed up to look dangerous so that they are very similar to the images posted. But go figure - I've seen lighters that looked like bonafide real guns, too. :eek:

Yay, let's all play with guns! :ura1:

#236 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:04 PM

they could be cap guns or movie props... I don't know what his point was either. My conclusion is that he's desperately grasping at straws.

#237 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:06 PM

Do any of the pro-gun people in this thread feel confident they could easily engineer their own 30 round magazines for their guns if they were no longer commercially available for purchase?

Yup

#238 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,264 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:08 PM

Posted Image

#239 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,264 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:09 PM

^^ I mean, that should be the name for the cigarette lighters that look like guns, amirite? :funny1:

Oh, and I want to second the kudos for this all being a level discussion thus far - fair play, eveyone! :)

#240 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:10 PM

ha... that's a good one! :lol:

#241 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:41 PM

That's why I didn't rise to the question either. WTF does the appearance of the weapon have anything to do with it? :dunno:

I have seen air-guns dressed up to look dangerous so that they are very similar to the images posted. But go figure - I've seen lighters that looked like bonafide real guns, too. :eek:

Yay, let's all play with guns! :ura1:


It has just as much to do with it as saying "assault weapon".

#242 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,836 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:41 PM

That's why I didn't rise to the question either. WTF does the appearance of the weapon have anything to do with it? :dunno:

I have seen air-guns dressed up to look dangerous so that they are very similar to the images posted. But go figure - I've seen lighters that looked like bonafide real guns, too. :eek:

Yay, let's all play with guns! :ura1:


It appears your gubmint is making decisions based on appearance. At least they have historically.



#243 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxug98i7oI4


:lmao:

#244 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:34 PM

so, it's the designation of "assault weapon" that you object to?

it's a weapon whose only purpose is to assault as many people as possible as fast as possible.

it's not a handgun, a hunting rifle, or a shotgun.

If they're all the same, then why are these "big, ugly, mean" ones so important to you? If they're all the same, then any gun should satisfy your need for firepower.

#245 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:08 PM

Which one has the sole purpose of assaulting as many people as possible as fast as possible?

That's the point you keep trying to escape. Every single solitary firearm, if taken up with this particular intent, has this purpose.

It is the person's objective, not the tool. A hand gun, a hunting rifle or a shotgun can all be used for this intent.

I really dont want to have to say it again. But im sure you will come back around for another dose.

#246 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 29 July 2012 - 02:05 PM

I already said that I feel any firearm with more than a 6 round clip, or any firearm that is semi-automatic is an assault weapon and should be illegal without a special permit.

That is my answer. Sorry if you can't deal with it.

#247 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 29 July 2012 - 09:01 PM

If you're as talented a marksman as you claim, than 6 rounds per clip ought to be more than sufficient to protect your family and your belongings.

#248 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,264 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:29 PM

Posted Image

#249 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 08:18 PM

Then what? We'd still have thousands of gun deaths a year based on that logic. :dunno:

#250 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 July 2012 - 08:46 PM

liability insurance on each gun makes a lot of sense

and the point is that you compared a gun to a bus... but guns are way less regulated than buses, so the comparison was stupid.