Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL
A bazooka is a destructive device! They're not banned. I can make one on a form 1 or form 4 get the tax stamp from the ATF upon approval and have a bazooka or rpg and it's corresponding ammo, on seperate form 1 or form 4s... pay the crown their tax await the approval receive stamp and have my destructive devices. Just the same as it was for me for suppressors waiting 18 months...
And yeah I object to banning the following.
Bazooka/RPG
Machine guns
Grenades
Cannons
Tanks
Fighter jets
Helicopters
I own land. I should be able to operate whatever I want to on that land. If I want an M1 Abrams, I should be able to buy it. Buy rounds for it. Take junk cars out on my property and shoot them with the tank.
Or have a cobra/apache gunship and fly up and nail it with missiles and machine guns.
Or strafe a line of junk cars with an A10 warthog.
I'm not bothering anyone by doing that. I'm not putting anyone's life at risk if I did that. So who are you or .gov to say I cant? It's my money. I'll spend it however I want.
If I want to invite No_Recess, BentBow, rebeldor, 1AngryTaxpayer, hell even you and KenFresno out to shoot up junk cars, I should be able to with whatever weapons we want. Who are we hurting? Nobody. Who are we killing? Wounding? Nobody.
But ya'll follow this emotional drivel, associate the implement with the individual that commits heinous violent acts with conflation and false equivalency.
Oh... someone likes something I dont. Ban it! It's inherently dangerous! It means that individual is a blood listing psychopath!
You can easily have a complete mental breakdown one day and then use such weapons to kill lots of people. Nobody wants to hinge their safety on your sanity. People's ability to be reasonable, logical, understanding and responsible are subject to dramatic change. From my standpoint, the potential risk to the general public massively outweighs your perceived right to own such weapons.
So is an AR-15. And a shotgun. And a hunting rifle. And a knife. And a car.
Quote:
They're not banned. I can make one on a form 1 or form 4 get the tax stamp from the ATF upon approval and have a bazooka or rpg and it's corresponding ammo, on seperate form 1 or form 4s... pay the crown their tax await the approval receive stamp and have my destructive devices. Just the same as it was for me for suppressors waiting 18 months...
Then how about imposing those same restrictions on owning an Ar-15?
Quote:
And yeah I object to banning the following.
Bazooka/RPG
Machine guns
Grenades
Cannons
Tanks
Fighter jets
Helicopters
Well, then, all I can say is, you're in the minority.
Quote:
I own land. I should be able to operate whatever I want to on that land. If I want an M1 Abrams, I should be able to buy it. Buy rounds for it. Take junk cars out on my property and shoot them with the tank.
Or have a cobra/apache gunship and fly up and nail it with missiles and machine guns.
Or strafe a line of junk cars with an A10 warthog.
I'm not bothering anyone by doing that. I'm not putting anyone's life at risk if I did that. So who are you or .gov to say I cant? It's my money. I'll spend it however I want.
If I want to invite No_Recess, BentBow, rebeldor, 1AngryTaxpayer, hell even you and KenFresno out to shoot up junk cars, I should be able to with whatever weapons we want. Who are we hurting? Nobody. Who are we killing? Wounding? Nobody.
But ya'll follow this emotional drivel, associate the implement with the individual that commits heinous violent acts with conflation and false equivalency.
Oh... someone likes something I dont. Ban it! It's inherently dangerous! It means that individual is a blood listing psychopath!
You can do that, but as you just noted, you need to jump through steep hoops to get all those things. Is that any different from myself and others wanting to require people to jump through steep hoops to buy lesser weapons?
No. We just disagree on where to draw the line on which weapons should have steep hoops to acquire.
After the end of WW2 the US military went back and looked at different engagements to see what factors determined who won and lost. The number one determining factor was number of bullets fired. As you said yourself, higher hit probability. Semi-auto fire is preferred just because it preserves ammo, not because its scores more kills. Militaries have understood the value of bullet volume for battlefield success for more then a century. German squads during WW2 were structured around their LMG as the main killing instrument for this very reason.
I call complete BS. The deciding factor in every major engagement of typical military (massed forces) since WWI has been the ability to employ artillery (and/or deny your enemy the ability to employ their artillery). The kill counts of WWI to today in large formation engagements show small arms accounts for around 5% of casualties. About 1% are not combat related (trips, falls and getting run over). The remaining 94% comes from artillery (ground, sea, and ordinance from aircraft, which is just very mobile artillery).
Sure in FISH and CHIPS as the Brits use (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In Peoples Streets), small arms are best used to minimize collateral damage. But not in traditional large formation battles, or even UO where you don't care about collateral damage.
You can easily have a complete mental breakdown one day and then use such weapons to kill lots of people. Nobody wants to hinge their safety on your sanity. People's ability to be reasonable, logical, understanding and responsible are subject to dramatic change. From my standpoint, the potential risk to the general public massively outweighs your perceived right to own such weapons.
Nah... see... there isn't a single reason for me to risk everything I've worked for because woe is me.
Impossible to happen as I am not compelled by emotion. I see you and the other one are only capable of emoting and projection placing your fear onto me.
Technically your 2A rights are already being infringed upon and always has. You can't legally acquire a whole plethora of what could be consider "arms". By its execution the 2A is a limited right. Its not an all or nothing right like some of the others.
Since your 2A rights are already limited, how would it be in infringement if additional arms are added to that list. How would not being allowed to own an RPG not be an infringement of the 2A but an AR-15 is?
That the 2A has been violated thousands of times does not make it any less clear, nor my philosophy any less logical. All the thousands of violations mean to me is that the government doesn't much care for limitations on their power, while caring a great deal for increasing that power over the citizenry.
Your acquiescence to tyranny makes it no less tyrannical. I simply refuse, at least philosophically, to acquiesce to tyranny, and will fight at least the rhetorical debate fight to maximize the liberty and freedom of the individual while minimizing the power and reach of the government.
But back to the government not caring about limitations on their power. You do realize that this is the point of explicitly singling out the right to keep and bear arms for protection from government mischief? Right? If they never face any reprisal for their actions, the tyrannical government will never stop increasing their level of oppression.
During our own American Revolution, there were loyalists like you who were cool with King George's tyrannies, and there were revolutionaries like me who fought against it. The population hasn't changed, just the names of what we call loyalists and revolutionaries. I am an individual with natural rights first and always, and the government of the United States is supposed to be my servant, not my master. You and I will never agree on something fundamental like natural individual rights so why discuss technical points past that? You are cool with tyranny, I am not. We can agree to disagree. If it ever gets down to the marrow, we'll see how it goes I guess.
We can start by implementing tighter regulations on who acquires guns and how they acquire them. A mandatory mental health evaluation before purchase of a firearm would be a start. Doing nothing is not an option.
And who would do such evaluations? The same “trained mental health professionals” who have decided that men *can* become women if they just believe hard enough and self-mutilate? Who change the parameters of diagnosis to suit PC thinking and political winds? Who prescribe zombie-fying meds for children rather than suggest appropriate discipline as a cure? Yep, that’s who I’d feel good about passing judgement on me!
So is an AR-15. And a shotgun. And a hunting rifle. And a knife. And a car.
Then how about imposing those same restrictions on owning an Ar-15?
No restrictons on anything.
If I had it my way. Cars wouldn't have 87 air bags traction control ABS or stability control.
No bans on firearms.
No bans on destructive devices.
Three wheelers would still be in production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Well, then, all I can say is, you're in the minority.
Oh good then you should be grandstanding for my right to do it and have it all. Ya'll are all about minorities and their rights then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
You can do that, but as you just noted, you need to jump through steep hoops to get all those things. Is that any different from myself and others wanting to require people to jump through steep hoops to buy lesser weapons?
Nope. Nor should anyone be jumping through hoops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
No. We just disagree on where to draw the line on which weapons should have steep hoops to acquire.
No line. No steep hoops to jump through. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And who would do such evaluations? The same “trained mental health professionals” who have decided that men *can* become women if they just believe hard enough and self-mutilate? Who change the parameters of diagnosis to suit PC thinking and political winds? Who prescribe zombie-fying meds for children rather than suggest appropriate discipline as a cure? Yep, that’s who I’d feel good about passing judgement on me!
Do you object to having to get a license to drive a car?
Not really... As a license is no indication of driver skill or ability.
I could drive in noreasters/snow storms doing 60 70mph in snowfall with airbags and ABS deactivated.
Not my problem someone else can't.
I grew up racing stock cars on dirt ovals. I accept the risk. I accept the responsibility for my actions.
I don't screech REEEEEEEE .GOV SAVE ME!
Ya'll wouldn't want me to be in charge of who gets a driver's license. 70% of the nation would lose their privilege to drive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
