Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
creampuff said:
Breadvan72 said:
You have been asked the question about the limits of what "arms" means three times and each time have failed to answer it and have instead attempted to lay smoke. Readers can draw the appropriate inference from your failure or inability to answer the question.
The current interpretation from is that it means bolt or break action or semi-automatic long guns and specifically according to the supreme court, handguns. I didn't answer because the answer is obvious, because the Supreme Court clarified what it means and I already posted a link. Sorry I was mistaken about a helicopter door gunner having a machine gun penis. You only used a helicopter door gunner as an example of a phallic use of a gun which does not necessarily have to be fired from the groin. I think your earlier post with a picture of Jane Fonda threw me.
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, but only loaded with plain rocks or Greek Fire, not with plague-carrying body parts. We are civilised people.
I read that there used to be some British .303 rounds which had a lump of wood (under the metal jacket) in the nose for stability. Apparently the Brits used to sterilise the wood. Was OK to shoot somebody but giving them blood poisoning is just >not.cool< 
Breadvan72 said:
Rocket launcher, then. I might want to use that for persomal defence and it only needs me to operate it. Why can't I carry a rocket launcher around and say I am bearing arms? Can you not see that your position has no principled basis?
What is a ban on full automatic OK but not a ban on semi automatic?
Purely in the spirit of devilment, I looked it up. You can legally buy an RPG-7 ($200 and a Form 4 for the licence bit). You can buy an Abrams MBT ($200 and a Form 4 per shell for the smoothbore gun), but you obviously wouldn't be able to keep the machine guns from the turret. Bless 'em.What is a ban on full automatic OK but not a ban on semi automatic?
Dodgy deal goes wrong in the 'hood? Bar room brawl? Sniper rifle - not much good. The self defence argument is BS. Anyway, you are supposed to be fighting the tyrannical Government, not some local hoodlum. Your itty bitty handgun or semi auto ain't gonna do you much good against the US Army. In other words, CP, your justifications for the love of guns are inconsistent, incoherent, and specious.
creampuff said:
I can't think of a sketchy situation in the 'hood where you would want a rocket launcher for self defence. For a start most defensive gun use happens with your assailant within a few feet of you, so if you used a rocket launcher you would blow yourself up. At longer ranges a rifle is much more accurate so again you don't need rockets. I can't see why you would need fully automatic for self-defence either. It's not spray-and-pray like in a Tarantino movie.
I love you gun nuts, you think every day will end up with people attacking your house like Assault On Precinct 13.randlemarcus said:
Purely in the spirit of devilment, I looked it up. You can legally buy an RPG-7 ($200 and a Form 4 for the licence bit). You can buy an Abrams MBT ($200 and a Form 4 per shell for the smoothbore gun), but you obviously wouldn't be able to keep the machine guns from the turret. Bless 'em.
I didn't realise that. Top post. Looked it up and while possible, it is very difficult and very expensive. See here:http://xdind.com/yes-you-can-legally-own-a-grenade...
If you do want to shoot a rocket launcher, you can go to Cambodia and shoot one for about $100. It used to be that you could buy a cow for about $500 and shoot the cow with the rocket. I'm told the tricky Cambodians altered the sights of the rocket launcher so it shot high and you missed the cow, so they could re-use it for next time.
TankRizzo said:
I love you gun nuts, you think every day will end up with people attacking your house like Assault On Precinct 13.
I just try to please. Edited by creampuff on Friday 2nd October 20:12
Blib said:
Was it on this thread that someone wrote that once Americans had accepted that their children could be slaughtered at gunpoint, that the game was lost?
That seems to be the long and short of it.
"......the seeds of tragedy are thereThat seems to be the long and short of it.
In what we feel we have the right to bear
To watch our children come to harm
There in the safety of our arms......."
Breadvan72 said:
Dodgy deal goes wrong in the 'hood? Bar room brawl? Sniper rifle - not much good. The self defence argument is BS. Anyway, you are supposed to be fighting the tyrannical Government, not some local hoodlum. Your itty bitty handgun or semi auto ain't gonna do you much good against the US Army. In other words, CP, your justifications for the love of guns are inconsistent, incoherent, and specious.
Like I was told recently, "Nobody could ever invade the US. It would be 3,000 miles of house to house searches."It seems (from the supreme court) that self-defence and opposing tyrannical governments are both legitimate reasons for bearing arms (i.e. rifles but not howitzers).
Randalmarcus did such a top post about rocket launchers that I decided to research flame throwers. Who would have thunk it, you can buy flame throwers!
Here's some for sale!
https://throwflame.com
Not only that, they aren't even considered firearms so they are completely unregulated! Anybody can buy one!
creampuff said:
Breadvan72 said:
Dodgy deal goes wrong in the 'hood? Bar room brawl? Sniper rifle - not much good. The self defence argument is BS. Anyway, you are supposed to be fighting the tyrannical Government, not some local hoodlum. Your itty bitty handgun or semi auto ain't gonna do you much good against the US Army. In other words, CP, your justifications for the love of guns are inconsistent, incoherent, and specious.
Like I was told recently, "Nobody could ever invade the US. It would be 3,000 miles of house to house searches."It seems (from the supreme court) that self-defence and opposing tyrannical governments are both legitimate reasons for bearing arms (i.e. rifles but not howitzers).
Randalmarcus did such a top post about rocket launchers that I decided to research flame throwers. Who would have thunk it, you can buy flame throwers!
Here's some for sale!
https://throwflame.com
Not only that, they aren't even considered firearms so they are completely unregulated! Anybody can buy one!
A lot of stuff talked about the Americans giving up guns. It's never going to happen. Ever. If it didn't happen after Sandy Hook, it never will. Any idiot can see that.
Guns are so deeply embedded within American culture that asking them to give up guns would be like asking us Brits to give up alcohol. We all know the damage alcohol does, and the misery it causes when in the hands of t
ts. But most of us enjoy alcohol and don't drive a car or beat our wives after a glass of our favourite tipple. And to be fair, most gun owning yanks will enjoy their guns and use them responsibly and never cause anyone else any trouble.
The other problem with giving up guns in America is that even if they became illegal, only the sane, responsible and law abiding people would hand them in. And millions of guns would still be out there, exclusively in the hands of morons. And then the NRA's argument about the good guys needing guns to protect themselves would actually have an element of truth to it.
The only thing I wish is that the yanks would just be honest about their guns. fk all that crap about the 2nd amendment. We all know that's a smokescreen. As BV72 and I have said, no one's moaning about their right to bear a nuclear missile having been removed.
The Americans like guns. They want to keep their guns, and a dozen or so children being shot to death every few months is a price they are prepared to pay. So be it. It's their country. In the overall scheme of dead kids it's no big deal. Nearly 50K kids die of starvation every day across the world.
So just say it America, be honest and end the argument.
Guns are so deeply embedded within American culture that asking them to give up guns would be like asking us Brits to give up alcohol. We all know the damage alcohol does, and the misery it causes when in the hands of t
ts. But most of us enjoy alcohol and don't drive a car or beat our wives after a glass of our favourite tipple. And to be fair, most gun owning yanks will enjoy their guns and use them responsibly and never cause anyone else any trouble. The other problem with giving up guns in America is that even if they became illegal, only the sane, responsible and law abiding people would hand them in. And millions of guns would still be out there, exclusively in the hands of morons. And then the NRA's argument about the good guys needing guns to protect themselves would actually have an element of truth to it.
The only thing I wish is that the yanks would just be honest about their guns. f
k all that crap about the 2nd amendment. We all know that's a smokescreen. As BV72 and I have said, no one's moaning about their right to bear a nuclear missile having been removed.The Americans like guns. They want to keep their guns, and a dozen or so children being shot to death every few months is a price they are prepared to pay. So be it. It's their country. In the overall scheme of dead kids it's no big deal. Nearly 50K kids die of starvation every day across the world.
So just say it America, be honest and end the argument.
creampuff said:
longshot said:
Why teach gun safety to an 8 year old?
They may as well learn it sometime. Seems the consensus is 8 is the minimum age where they have the brainpower. The brainpower to handle the gun safely, this is different to having the brainpower independently know when/where it is appropriate and safe to use a gun, hence why the .22 is single shot, bolt action and used under parental supervision. It seems odd that you can train someone with a lethal weapon at such a young age but they have to wait until 21 to have a light beer.
Perhaps if an age limit of say 18 was placed on gun use more may decide they don't need to have one in their life rather than it becoming second nature to them at such an early age.
Perhaps that has something to do with it.
Gun owners want their kids to become gun owners too, not for protection or sport but just because.
Who knows.
WinstonWolf said:
How many deaths are acceptable to save the amendment?
Like I said, US gun laws are not uniform and some states are more restrictive, so obviously it is possible to have more restrictive gun laws compliant with the constitution. But less than half of Yanks want more restrictive gun laws; most are in favour of the status quo or want even less restrictions. I suspect you would like to see very restrictive UK style gun laws & I doubt that would have much support in the US at all. The current number of homicides - which are actually at a several decade low - would seem either to be acceptable or Americans do not relate legitimate, safe and legal gun ownership to homicide. Does anyone else here think the whole idea of 'gun free' zones in the US is ever so slightly crackers? Seriously, do people honestly need to be told not to bring their S&W revolver or Colt .45 to a school?
Gun control is needed in the US if they want to end shootings like this. It seems the NRA cannot (or will not) differentiate between gun CONTROL and banning guns if their propaganda is to be believed. Gun control does not have to mean the end of gun ownership in the US, or the end of the Second Amendment, it may just mean Joe Bloggs cannot buy a couple of rifles from their local corner shop without producing the appropriate documentation allowing them to do so.
Gun control is needed in the US if they want to end shootings like this. It seems the NRA cannot (or will not) differentiate between gun CONTROL and banning guns if their propaganda is to be believed. Gun control does not have to mean the end of gun ownership in the US, or the end of the Second Amendment, it may just mean Joe Bloggs cannot buy a couple of rifles from their local corner shop without producing the appropriate documentation allowing them to do so.
creampuff said:
WinstonWolf said:
How many deaths are acceptable to save the amendment?
Like I said, US gun laws are not uniform and some states are more restrictive, so obviously it is possible to have more restrictive gun laws compliant with the constitution. But less than half of Yanks want more restrictive gun laws; most are in favour of the status quo or want even less restrictions. I suspect you would like to see very restrictive UK style gun laws & I doubt that would have much support in the US at all. The current number of homicides - which are actually at a several decade low - would seem either to be acceptable or Americans do not relate legitimate, safe and legal gun ownership to homicide. Ten thousand? Too many? How many is acceptable so that "you can have your gun".
REALIST123 said:
Blib said:
Was it on this thread that someone wrote that once Americans had accepted that their children could be slaughtered at gunpoint, that the game was lost?
That seems to be the long and short of it.
"......the seeds of tragedy are thereThat seems to be the long and short of it.
In what we feel we have the right to bear
To watch our children come to harm
There in the safety of our arms......."
creampuff said:
Americans do not relate legitimate, safe and legal gun ownership to homicide.
And that is about the only thing in this gun toting craziness that I can understand. Just like when I hear about some fatal crash caused by a drunk driver, and men coming home drunk and beating their wives, or drunken British teenagers spewing up in the middle of the road in Magaluf, I don't equate it to me having a glass of Bourbon whilst I watch match of the day, or my wife, my sons and I sharing a bottle of wine over dinner.I'm well aware of the misery alcohol causes in the UK, the hassle and the danger the police face every saturday night in every city centre, the abuse handed out to A & E staff by injured drunks. But I don't care. It's a price we have to pay and I don't want to give up my responsible alcohol use.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff