[gast30]

batman likes oldschool beatdown with the fists

[gast30]

it is more male power competition
then it evolved to be skilled with swords and bows
and today it evollved to be killed with guns
the wild west, billy the kid

macho culture
did get the shit from that at a young age
this goes away in the last stages of life when people are old
then they know they can not win from death

and so ideas of beeing strong and powerfull fade like snow in the dessert

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by gast30

batman likes oldschool beatdown with the fists

He's bound to have a Swiss army knife in that belt. He could take down enemies about 20 differen't ways with that fucker. Can opener/corkscrew/toy gun

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Please explain to me exactly what the context of a large-caliber, high-powered, or carbine rifle is in self defense?

With pleasure! But first let me clarify that the AR15 isn't that large-caliber, certainly it's not an AK caliber. It's a .223 Remington unlike the russian stuff.

The .223 remington is MUCH SMALLER than the universally popular .30-06 hunting rifles

Nobody sez "oh your LARGE CALIBER HUNTING RIFLE". 30-06 rifles they are not part of the proposed ban. Yet they also shoot semi-auto.

This is the problem with media-induced ignorance: they show a scary looking picture and say "assault weapon"! In reality it's not that way. There is a lot of variation.

Now let me just say: I much prefer a revolver! It's simple, it doesn't jam, it's great in small spaces, easier to lock up.

But other people have different opinions and they have the right to their choice. I'm just repeating some of the pro-carbine arguments: THere's the ease of aiming with them, there's the maneuverability of a short barrel (vs. a regular rifle), there's the fact that if you pick the right kind of ammo (e.g. frangible) it penetrates less than a pistol, there's the deterrent look of the "scary gun" (what scares you and journalists also scares criminals), there's the fact that you can customize with scopes and flashlights and whatever you need at dark when some asshole breaks into your house, there's the great accuracy (better than a handgun or a shotgun) and there's the fact that when facing 3 home invaders you get 10 shots per criminal with a large mag which is pretty good considering.

Anyway why rewrite when people have already done it:

http://www.boatmanbooks.com/samplelwar15.html

(you gotta continue after the large blank space, it's a long article)

and here's one written by two women:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-celia-bigelow


Opinions of course vary and some people prefer shotguns, pistols, etc.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Self-defense = small arms and pistols, maybe a shotgun or a rifle. Anything else is just silly to try with a straight face to call it self defense..

"Carbine" simply means "rifle with a shorter barrel"! So you just said that carbines maybe are okay then? I agree man.

Preferably if using a rifle itshould be a rifle that's not large caliber or overly powerful like a .30-06 hunting rifle (where you're bound to kill your neighbors), with low recoil, and with a short barrel and stock that let you move comfortably indoors. That's the AR15. Thanks for choosing!

As for shotguns: sure, they are the "classic" home defense gun, but beware that they have a spray pattern [fun video] making them harder to shoot accurately, even at short range. If a criminal is holding a hostage, do you want to use a shotgun and kill both people?

You gotta make these decisions based on fact not propaganda. Here for example people discuss pros & cons:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...e-defense.html

[!@#$%!]

ps- here a little info on calibers... ha ha ha... drink coffee before you start. it's headache-inducing.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Sel..._FAQ/index.htm

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

With pleasure! But first let me clarify that the AR15 isn't that large-caliber, certainly it's not an AK caliber. It's a .223 Remington unlike the russian stuff.

The .223 remington is MUCH SMALLER than the universally popular .30-06 hunting rifles

Nobody sez "oh your LARGE CALIBER HUNTING RIFLE". 30-06 rifles they are not part of the proposed ban. Yet they also shoot semi-auto.

This is the problem with media-induced ignorance: they show a scary looking picture and say "assault weapon"! In reality it's not that way. There is a lot of variation.

Now let me just say: I much prefer a revolver! It's simple, it doesn't jam, it's great in small spaces, easier to lock up.

But other people have different opinions and they have the right to their choice. I'm just repeating some of the pro-carbine arguments: THere's the ease of aiming with them, there's the maneuverability of a short barrel (vs. a regular rifle), there's the fact that if you pick the right kind of ammo (e.g. frangible) it penetrates less than a pistol, there's the deterrent look of the "scary gun" (what scares you and journalists also scares criminals), there's the fact that you can customize with scopes and flashlights and whatever you need at dark when some asshole breaks into your house, there's the great accuracy (better than a handgun or a shotgun) and there's the fact that when facing 3 home invaders you get 10 shots per criminal with a large mag which is pretty good considering.

Anyway why rewrite when people have already done it:

http://www.boatmanbooks.com/samplelwar15.html

(you gotta continue after the large blank space, it's a long article)

and here's one written by two women:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-celia-bigelow


Opinions of course vary and some people prefer shotguns, pistols, etc.


"Carbine" simply means "rifle with a shorter barrel"! So you just said that carbines maybe are okay then? I agree man.

Preferably if using a rifle itshould be a rifle that's not large caliber or overly powerful like a .30-06 hunting rifle (where you're bound to kill your neighbors), with low recoil, and with a short barrel and stock that let you move comfortably indoors. That's the AR15. Thanks for choosing!

As for shotguns: sure, they are the "classic" home defense gun, but beware that they have a spray pattern [fun video] making them harder to shoot accurately, even at short range. If a criminal is holding a hostage, do you want to use a shotgun and kill both people?

You gotta make these decisions based on fact not propaganda. Here for example people discuss pros & cons:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...e-defense.html

I am not being manipulated by the media, I am very literate in weapons, and assault style weapons are what they are, military assault weapons. Its not the caliber which determines this, its the tactical design. This is what the manufacturers designed them for, some have been adapted for public sale, but their design remains the same, for combat. You can call it propaganda all you'd like, but it is just the historical reality of the development of weapons like the AR-15 or the SKS..


We disagree. I don't see these rifles has being home or self defense, they were designed for rapid fire because of their lower velocity, and generally a .223 round while the same bore size as a small .22 tend to be high-power rounds extra packed, and the tips are of course longer. Getting shot by an AR-15 is not getting shot with a .22 hunting rifle. A carbine is smaller than a rifle, true, and has this tactical advantage as a defense weapon for those in chaotic combat situations, but for home defense, seems a bit exaggerated to me. If you are a drug dealer and a bunch of low-lives know how much cash you have I can see that, but for a family home?

I think it is a fair compromise that SOME weapons be readily allowed (albeit through background checks and legitimate dealers) for legal ownership and folks expression of Second Amendment rights, but in truth, we need to compromise here. Not EVERY weapon that the gun companies happen to manufacture. Since the 1950s carbine rifles like the SKS and the AR/M rifles were designed and marketed to militaries around the world for military service. I think it is a fair and REASONABLE compromise to restrict access of these kinds of weapons. It is not a media conspiracy, it is the kinds of laws we enacted from 1994-2004 which had a potential to work.


I am not afraid of guns homie, I am nervous about guns because people are inherently mistake prone, but when armed humans make these very human mistakes other humans can get seriously hurt or worse. When people are angry, they make bad decisions. Neighbors, friends, co-workers, tend to snap. Shit happens. Guns exaggerate this, so why give access to even more dangerous guns? If you are seriously suggesting that carbine weapons are no more dangerous than pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns, than dude, we have to just stop this conversation here and now.

Compromise is mutual. Gun supporters EQUALLY half to take a loss here, why not pick something like assault style weapons and keep the rest of y'all guns? Why NO compromise on this issue? How is that fair to society? That is not exactly what the Second Amendment is about, the Constitution (when it does, which is rarely if ever) functions as a synchronicity, as all the rights working together. One person's rights to something do not overpower the collective rights of everybody. I respect gun owners, but they have to respect that a lot of Americans agree with these controls. That is why such laws HAVE ALREADY BE ENACTED in the past, and I am surely confident that most Americans will push for them to be reenacted. It is not a conspiracy, it is what many people want. No guns? No. No to SOME guns? Yes. How hard is that really?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

On Monday, Piers Morgan made his way down to Houston to visit a gun shop / range and interview rocker, Ted Nugent.


Piers vs. Ted Nugent: http://youtu.be/pkjIMxf0VyU

Piers Morgan Protest in Texas aka Alex Jones: http://youtu.be/TgOzRjG4Cvw


Sandy Hook Father Owns Congress: http://youtu.be/dhXPlCjr0Vw

nugent did okay, and piers morgan is a complete douche, but alex jones only gives credence to the theory that gun owners are a bunch of lunatics. what i mean is-- foaming at the mouth on cnn for publicity was one thing, but that schtick gets old quickly. oh, look at him make furious faces and drive up his blood pressure! grrrrrrr!!! watch him peel his teeth! oh, the rage! hear him growl! what a clown.

anyway, that ar15 that morgan shot looks sweet. damn! i think i want one now ha ha ha ha. good ad.

[gast30]

the nra 'acts' like all 'other' americans are ready to kill them all
and that that is the reason why they hould all 'BUY' guns to make sell going

have you seen international gun sells?
they sell to every country without questioning to who and what for people

humans are simply like little childeren
when things go wrong no one takes responsibility

really sad cause people will only wake up when their loved one i shot dead or their childeren

when you see your childeren swimming in their own blood
you will wake up
if you take responsibility or not

like that cult in the united state that has commited mass suicide

a man who wa manipulated by that cult said

when i had a dead child in my arm
i woke up and start to realize where i was in

humans are little childeren they don't think of the future and the next generation of people who will live on this planet

the next generation who don't need a pioson gift and all the problems
the previous generation have created

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Of course, the clip of the Sandy Hook Father shows us there is "No Credence" to be (given or taken away) when it comes to gun ownership.

 

You do realize that the father has the obvious bias of having his young child recently gunned down alongside their teachers right? I'm just saying, maybe you could be a bit more understanding of his opinions even if you dismissively disagree with them all things considered

[!@#$%!]

yeah i'm not fully opposed to what jones has to say, it's that how he says it makes gun owners look emotionally impaired

 

^^ like that.

the dad was actually great, i thought. at first i thought he was being disrespectful but no-- "you politicians" lololol. that was good. he didn't go overboard.

[Trama]

MUH GUNS

Is this the best argument these people can come up with?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

You do realize that the father has the obvious bias of having his young child recently gunned down alongside their teachers right? I'm just saying, maybe you could be a bit more understanding of his opinions even if you dismissively disagree with them all things considered

did you watch the video? the father didn't have a kid killed there. his own daughter was in lockdown.

Originally Posted by Trama

Is this the best argument these people can come up with?

essentially yes. some people see it as an attempt to expropriation/confiscation and taking away of constitutional rights.

[Trama]

I mean, why not bring up actual important things to the debate like the "War on Drugs"?

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that's the biggest driving force of gun violence in the US.

[gast30]

-america is not a country
america is an economie

from the movie 'killing them softly'

it is simply the weaponfactories that cause all thee wars and dead people

no one even tries to stop the weaponfactories
they make billions from war

war is the economie of weaponfactories

if you americans are soooooo BLIND for this
then maybe you americans need a god
or a good pair of glasses

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Trama

I mean, why not bring up actual important things to the debate like the "War on Drugs"?

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that's the biggest driving force of gun violence in the US.

shit, yes! if someone only had the brains and the courage to do that, but politicians go where the propaganda is stronger, and the average citizen only responds when his immediate interests are threatened.

i was extremely happy with marijuana legalization in a couple of states after the election here. particularly with the colorado version, where anybody is allowed to grow their own and share it with others, etc.

by giving control to the individual gardener (basically what it is), the government is taken out of the equation (no need for dispensaries/ registration/medical licenses/ etc.) which makes it nearly impossible to police-- it's a huge step in taking gangs out of drugs.

now if the other 48 states would follow-- they will, in time.

[Trama]

Incarceration apparently has become a huge industry there, I think it's definitely going to take some time.

[!@#$%!]

the industrial prison complex is a shameful, shameful clusterfuck. about 1/2 million people are in for drugs. of course they go in for non-violent charges and they come out with advanced degrees in crime. shit, don't get me started... obama should be focusing on that instead of wasting time trying to ban magazines.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

I didn't get to watch the video I was at work..

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

The same laws that guarantee me the right to own shotguns, riffles and hand guns is the same law that give my brother the right to own a AR......God Bless America!

I am sorry Bytor but that simply is not true. For a while many folks equally asserted it was their Constitutional rights to enforce racial segregation. Then the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court fulfilled their Constitutional function in interpreting the Constitution and the Constitutionality of laws and legislation realized that such segregation was actually in violation of the Constitution. Now we are at a similar situation with the Second Amendment. Some folks want to interpret the Constitution as suggest ALL or ANY or EVERY kind of "arms" but this word itself, "arms" is entirely up the definition and interpretation of the Judicial branch. So let the Courts decide, but their history suggests that some gun-control and regulation is inherently constitutional

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

"You want to take my rights away, take me to court."

Well, it will indeed, and as in the past, the court very well may agree with such legislation. Besides, nobody wants to necessarily take away anyones' rights so much as properly and legally define the exact parameters of what those rights entail and what they specifically exclude. That is what the Courts are for

I have no problem with this guy being upset about the situation, his daughter faced a very threatening circumstance. I can even respect his desire to express his "Second Amendment" rights but again, I will ask to him to also respect my rights and negotiate, compromise, and take a loss. I and many others are asking for 100% universal background checks as a bare minimum here, and a ban on dangerous weapons as an ideal. He gets the guns he has, he gets to by certain kinds of guns fully within his Second Amendment rights. However, the Connecticut Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution say, "Bear arms" and what exactly the word "arms" signifies is debatable. However and quite clearly, it doesn't say, "Bear any and every kind of arms." So there is legal framework to support restriction and regulation, just as the courts at the states and federal level have all affirmed.

"Why is this security not available?"

What, armed police all over the community, including in over 40,000 schools every single day NOT enough security? REALLY? That is a farce.

Again I can respect this man's emotions and the tragedy of the situation, but it doesn't negate the reality of the necessity for compromise. That it is what the word "COMMUNITY" is all about, the communally mutual decisions.

[gast30]

you also have to be realistic with the people and the systems they build to live together

as question and you will get to the bottom of everthing

for example
-Do people care for other people ?

now they speak about bettering menthal health care

why NOW after the schooting of 27 childeren?

because people found it easyer to leave people in bad situation

people never cared about other people

it is too late to come NOW saying
WE got to take better care of menthaly ill people

american politic never cared about the people
the more stupid people
the better for the people at the top
was the old powerabuse strategy
that can not hold on forever
because you have to then create a lifetime of keeping people stupid
and THAT wil really show the big picture

the picture of today is the follow up of the conflicts of white peoples abuse on black people

the white people of america have a really sick histroy
slavery in the old days
oppression in the martin luther king days
and still today black people keep their eyes open for these sick white people and their long streached lies

the good white people where supporting kennedy
kennedy was there to open univerities for black people
living equally together

back in those days
now it is obama 4 more years time in the us

that is the back ground of america
towards the america of today and the america of the future

as i was saying
do people really care about other people?

ask question to come to the bottom of america
is there care for the american people
as a capitalistic ystem that devides and makes peoples even difficult to get healthcare
obama fixed that
obama looked at the problems americans have
and protected the americans from these kapitalistic sytems that only serve 1% of the american people

now the issue of mentally weak people
look at all the homeles people
that were there BEFORE obama' preidency

most of the homeless people are people who are confused and can not follow
the fast economic changes that were going on
and ended up in the street

they were NOT helped
so you can say
that people don't care about the people
and from there
who is responsible is all the people who never cared about fellow american people

they don't need to be surprized that people turn ill and become a mass killers

a good example is the recent war veteran that held a child hostage

look at american veterans today
most kill themself when they return from war of posttraumaticstress syndromes

veterans are a charity cases

look at the victims of 9-11
systematicly refused medical help after the 9-11 attack

doctors refuse to give victims of 9-11 the official papers so they have their rights on care and hospitalisation

doctors who are paid to NOT give help to 9-11 victim
because they cost alot of MONEY $$$

you seen maybe the movies of micheal more
where americans move to cuba and canada to recover or buy medication
to survive the 9-11 attacks

you really need to see through the big hyporictic smog that is blurring america