Atheistforums.com

News & General Discussion => News Stories and Current Events => Topic started by: Brian37 on February 14, 2013, 10:39:53 AM

Title: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 14, 2013, 10:39:53 AM
I would have supported the old NRA, the one that started out as a non profit educational gun safety organization. But it is nothing more than a corporate lobbyist for gun makers and uses fear and bigotry to gin up fear to keep gun sales up.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/a ... enemy-list (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/avlon-nra-enemy-list)

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scru ... ll-exists/ (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scrubs-anti-gun-enemy-list-from-website-but-a-version-still-exists/)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 63766.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/nra-anti-gun-list-missing_n_2663766.html)

Seems however now that the fucking cowards have been called out they have removed it.

Oh and Ben and Jerry's ice cream was on the list. This commie is going to go out and buy some Ben and Jerry's and support A PRIVATE BUSINESS, what the fuck am I thinking?

Other groups on the list, just about every Hollywood star. But the AMA, NURSES organizations, black organizations,  just about every Jewish group, and the YWCA. And several private sector businesses.

WHY DID YOU TAKE YOUR LIST DOWN NRA? FUCKING COWARDS!
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SGOS on February 14, 2013, 10:49:00 AM
I think there are many reasonable members of the NRA, but the organization itself is rigid and becoming more out of touch.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 14, 2013, 11:03:33 AM
Which is why I said, I would have supported the original entity when it first started, but it does NOT represent it's members. The average member who is not involved with running the organization, most members SUPPORT gun safety. What it has become is nothing short of a mafia racketeering organization to make gun makers rich.

The irony is I hate guns, I don't mean the fact that others own them, just that for ME I am afraid of them. But that does not mean I want to take all guns from sane responsible people.

It is also a myth that liberals don't own guns or don't hunt. Gabbi Giffords still owns a gun.

The NRA leadership is not about gun safety, it is about gun sales and it uses fear and scare tactics to expand the sales of it's corporate overlords.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SvZurich on February 14, 2013, 11:39:41 AM
I signed a petition asking to be on the list.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 14, 2013, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: "SvZurich"I signed a petition asking to be on the list.

Link?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 14, 2013, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: "SvZurich"I signed a petition asking to be on the list.

They can put me on that list too.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SvZurich on February 14, 2013, 12:59:12 PM
I don't know the link anymore.  Try Google.  I deleted the emails after signing.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 14, 2013, 01:03:00 PM
I think there's nothing more banal and involuted that shoot a living creature for fun, except aliens, zombies and matchbox. I Would be proud to be on this list
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 14, 2013, 01:18:33 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"I think there's nothing more banal and involuted that shoot a living creature for fun, except aliens, zombies and matchbox. I Would be proud to be on this list

I think hunting is a part of our evolutionary experience in finding resources. It makes less sense now that technology and farming allow us to raise animals without hunting them. But if these hunters insist on it, just don't call it a sport, sports have level neutral rules and fields of play both sides have the opportunity to use. Hunting is not a sport, it is a trap, it is a trick. So if people  hunt, eat it, kill it quickly and as painlessly as possible and don't call it a sport.

But yea I agree, a grown man or women who thinks they are cleaver tricking an unarmed animal knowing the animal doesn't have the same ability, why would you get joy out of that? That would be like  a jock bully beating up a nerd to show off to the other jocks. It is just a childish form of narcissism.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SvZurich on February 14, 2013, 01:20:40 PM
RSN included the link on its most recent email.

http://readersupportednews.org/dear-nra ... emies-list (http://readersupportednews.org/dear-nra-plese-add-me-to-your-enemies-list)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Plu on February 14, 2013, 01:21:11 PM
Sport would be a man with a spear taking on a bear or a tiger. I'd pay to watch that game.

Sounds like the NRA is acting par for the course. Lets hope it opens some eyes.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 14, 2013, 01:29:56 PM
Quote from: "Plu"Sport would be a man with a spear taking on a bear or a tiger. I'd pay to watch that game.

Sounds like the NRA is acting par for the course. Lets hope it opens some eyes.

No not even then. Animals do not have the same level of thought. A spear is long and still with a blade on it still would give the man an advantage. And with the right training a man can do what bullfighters do(another barbaric event, I refuse to call it a sport).

A man could not win a fight with no weapons against those predators and a spear would give the man an advantage. A simple bowie knife would be an advantage although it would allow for close contact, that would be about as close to fair as I could come, but even with just a knife a deep stab or several deep stabs on the body will kill the animal if left untreated.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 14, 2013, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: "SvZurich"RSN included the link on its most recent email.

http://readersupportednews.org/dear-nra ... emies-list (http://readersupportednews.org/dear-nra-plese-add-me-to-your-enemies-list)

Thanks Kimmie.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SvZurich on February 14, 2013, 05:11:32 PM
You're welcome Stromboli.  :)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 14, 2013, 05:57:41 PM
Ugh....I think it's time for a new gun lobby organization to take hold. The NRA has just been making gun owners look like morons who don't care a bit about safety.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 14, 2013, 10:10:55 PM
I couldn't care less if a person hunts for sport, so long as they are responsible.  Sport hunting targets the old and weak in a herd, making the herd stronger over all.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 05:17:56 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"I couldn't care less if a person hunts for sport, so long as they are responsible.  Sport hunting targets the old and weak in a herd, making the herd stronger over all.


And I thought that I was in the third world because here the flock eats feed, fattening, take antibiotics and anabolics, then is slaughtered. As for wild animals, most do not live in flocks and those living are endangered by lack of food and space, ie, there is need to strengthen the herd, unless you live in the nineteenth century.
Hunting for sport is so primitive as to make war spoils.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 11:10:01 AM
You clearly know nothing of the most popular game.  Deer, Elk, moose, etc. DO travel in herds.  Trophies from these animals become desirable when the animal is greatly aged and often sick.  As for your arguments against strengtherning the herd: farming is the very reason that wild species are dwindling.  When we allow them to get weak and sick, they will become extinct, leaving us with ONLY farmed animals who have been genetically modified, pumped full of steroids, and confined in small spaces that increase their body fat and decrease their nutritional value.  We have seemingly tamed nature, but we're really just damaged it and removed ourselves from the sight of our own irresponsibility.  The further down that route that we go, the more we endanger our brother species, which in turn endangers our own.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 11:30:18 AM
buttfinger,

I agree with the second part of your arguments. Regarding the first, the animals do not need the man for kill old and/or sick animals. because there are several younger males, predators and nature disasters that do that. Instead using rifles and traps, cravenly appealing to the best instrument for adaptation in this planet, the intelligence.
Taking off the cultural part that perseveres in the habit of hunting, I still think an involuted act. Anyone "infected" by civilization should have aversion to hunt for fun.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: TrueStory on February 15, 2013, 11:33:00 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Sport would be a man with a spear taking on a bear or a tiger. I'd pay to watch that game.

Sounds like the NRA is acting par for the course. Lets hope it opens some eyes.

1 person with a spear in the jungles of Laos against a tiger, seems like a fair playing field.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 11:34:47 AM
Mot people infected by civilization have an aversion to eating food that doesn't come neatly wrapped in plastic.  There is a disconnect between us and the "tooth-and-claw" reality of nature.  While I personally don't engage in sport hunting, I DO insist that my children see the reality of where food comes from  and i DO support people coming in contact with this primal part of nature, as those who don't often find an outlet for that part of their mind in serial killing and the like.  That's not to argue "lack of hunting makes you a serial killer", just that people with physical and mental pathologies can find an outlet that is more savory for our species.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 11:36:54 AM
TrueStory,

The need to go to Laos to kill a tiger is as fanatical as that of a  Jeova witness go preach in the house of the other.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: TrueStory on February 15, 2013, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: "Mathias"TrueStory,

The need to go to Laos to kill a tiger is as fanatical as that of a  Jeova witness go preach in the house of the other.
the fuck are you talking about?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 11:43:45 AM
The need to go to Laos to kill a tiger is not indicative of responsible hunting.  Very rarely is anything but the pelt harvested.  But E disagree about the level of fanaticism involved.  Hunters, even unscrupulous ones, don't shun education and they certainly don't meet 5 times a week to discuss how to be more effective at it, nor do they do it daily and record the amount of time spent doing it, turn in these time records and use it as a basis for looking down on others who don't hunt enough.  Hunters also don't excommunicate people for hunting differently than they do.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SGOS on February 15, 2013, 11:51:54 AM
I think we should be somewhat cautious when suggesting sport hunting  is strongly linked to the NRA (if in fact that is what is being done here).  Most hunters, at least the one's I know, aren't even members of the NRA.  That the NRA might claim a strong kinship with hunters is mostly NRA spin, as far as I can tell.  The NRA is about gun control.  Hunting is about another issue, vile as it may seem to some people.  But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 15, 2013, 11:52:52 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"I couldn't care less if a person hunts for sport, so long as they are responsible.  Sport hunting targets the old and weak in a herd, making the herd stronger over all.

Thank you for some sanity.
Hunting is something I've done a fair amount of. Responsible hunting done properly, with game surveys and studies that select how many and what type of game to be hunted in a given area, protects the species by keeping herd sizes optimum and minimizing winter starvation and other factors. We refer to it as game conservation, which is what it actually is.

People are against trophy hunting, but there are good reasons for it. By selecting regions where trophy game are most likely to be found and limiting the number of permits allowed, only serious-i.e. more qualified- hunters get the opportunity. A typical buck deer can impregnate multiple does. One buck or two bucks in a herd does not substantially harm the viability of the herd, and actually helps to control numbers.

Game hunters typically take game opportunistically; the weak and less able. Dry does-non-weaning, meaning too old to produce offspring- can be culled from the herd, which also a good thing. Winter kill is based on numbers- too many in a herd over grazes a given area, in sparse conditions, causing die off. Limiting numbers by hunting eases the burden on the herd and allows for enough forage for the whole group.

All that said, the present NRA has little or nothing to do with that. Groups like Ducks Unlimited do more to aid and benefit the waterfowl picture than the NRA ever did. Most or all of the improvement of the wetlands during the 70's and 80's was promoted by Ducks Unlimited. It was hunters that did the actual work and spent the money to protect their sport. The NRA now is nothing but a shill for manufacturers and wacko fringe members like Ted Nugent.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 12:01:24 PM
Quote from: "SGOS"But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 12:04:51 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"The NRA now is nothing but a shill for manufacturers and wacko fringe members like Ted Nugent.
Also the NRA has long been a lobby for a very specialized group of people.  It unreasonably and unscrupulously allows members who have no business being on the trigger end of the gun to be members, and it unreasonably argues for NO restrictions on guns, all for the sake of making a buck.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 12:11:22 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"Mot people infected by civilization have an aversion to eating food that doesn't come neatly wrapped in plastic.  There is a disconnect between us and the "tooth-and-claw" reality of nature.  While I personally don't engage in sport hunting, I DO insist that my children see the reality of where food comes from  and i DO support people coming in contact with this primal part of nature, as those who don't often find an outlet for that part of their mind in serial killing and the like.  That's not to argue "lack of hunting makes you a serial killer", just that people with physical and mental pathologies can find an outlet that is more savory for our species.


And you said nothing that justifies killing an animal for sport or worse, have a feeling of exhilaration when hunting prey. Unless you live in an environment that hunting is essential for survival. Not because the technology is a corrupted power that we must become wild again.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: "TrueStory"
Quote from: "Mathias"TrueStory,

The need to go to Laos to kill a tiger is as fanatical as that of a  Jeova witness go preach in the house of the other.
the fuck are you talking about?


A person who feels the need to confront a tiger with a rifle is as primitive as the fundamentalist followers of the god of the bible.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 12:17:15 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"The need to go to Laos to kill a tiger is not indicative of responsible hunting.  Very rarely is anything but the pelt harvested.  But E disagree about the level of fanaticism involved.  Hunters, even unscrupulous ones, don't shun education and they certainly don't meet 5 times a week to discuss how to be more effective at it, nor do they do it daily and record the amount of time spent doing it, turn in these time records and use it as a basis for looking down on others who don't hunt enough.  Hunters also don't excommunicate people for hunting differently than they do.


Ok, I accept I overreacted, but because I was hideous pleased to kill an animal just to kill.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SGOS on February 15, 2013, 01:04:47 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.
I don't know what Piers Morgan says, and I don't really care.  Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 15, 2013, 01:43:08 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.

.223 is a legitimate hunting CALIBER. So is .308, by far the two most widely used for assault rifles. But the Kalashnikov rifle (7.62X39) is not the same as the American (7.62X51). As far as I know there are no hunting weapons that use the Russian round, or very few. It is a lower power round and optimized for the AK. But caliber and rifle are two different things. In every state I am familiar with, magazine capacity is limited to 5 rounds, or else 4 and one in the magazine. .223 is a small to midsize game round, typically used for coyotes and antelope. In both cases, shots are most often out past 200 yards. An assault rifle, even with a scope, is not a good hunting weapon. My experience is that you have one shot at an animal, at most two. I owned both an AR15 and a Browning BLR .308 lever action. I could get off two shots with the BLR, because a lever action is fast.

.223 is not optimum for a mule deer, possibly for a white tail. But we are talking assault rifles, high capacity magazines designed for one purpose- to kill people. I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.

The current proposed laws are too far reaching, in that respect I agree. Including weapons like a Ruger 10/22 is silly- I don't think there are many instances of one being used for mass murder. But weapons like revolvers, shotguns, bolt action rifles, lever actions, pump actions and so forth are still available. The only thing I ever hunted with my AR15 were rabbits, and that was overkill. I can't think of a legitimate reason for mass ownership of assault rifles, period.

the focus should be as much or more on the mental health side- we have a very poor record of mental health care. A sophisticated mental health screening process, more strictly enforced background checks and other ways to screen potential wackos should happen as part of the process.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 01:59:26 PM
It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 05:32:34 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"worse, have a feeling of exhilaration when hunting prey.
This is a physiological reaction to endorphins released as part of an evolutionary "strategy" to make on a more effective hunter.  It needs no justification: it just is.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 05:36:09 PM
Quote from: "SGOS"Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.
Good for you.  The fact remains, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, but the directed goal vocalized by the forerunners of the anti-gun movement.  It's also a slope that we've SEEN in action in Britain.  They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.  Britain is at a place were I don't want to be, and the nanny-staters who are seeking to ban "assault rifles" have openly admitted that it's their goal to legislate us into the same place.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: "stromboli".223 is not optimum for a mule deer, possibly for a white tail.
Agreed.

QuoteBut we are talking assault rifles, high capacity magazines designed for one purpose- to kill people.
Actually, we're talking about a rifle whose sole purpose is to fire a bullet, and a second one quickly, if needed.

QuoteI read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me.
I have too.  I noticed it also doesn't mention hunting.f  Protect your homestead with a bolt-cation rifle.  Good luck.

QuoteAssault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.
I agree and I would not personally use one, but the myriad hunters who successfully DO use them negates your objection.

Quotethe focus should be as much or more on the mental health side- we have a very poor record of mental health care. A sophisticated mental health screening process, more strictly enforced background checks and other ways to screen potential wackos should happen as part of the process.
I agree, the difference is that I balk at banning a gun that is already used in less than .5% of shootings, while retaining pistols that are used in the bulk of crimes, yet calling it a reasonable thing.  Especially when we consider that the whole argument is based on cosmetics.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
I only kill for food.  your argument is a strawman.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 05:52:17 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "Mathias"I think there's nothing more banal and involuted that shoot a living creature for fun, except aliens, zombies and matchbox. I Would be proud to be on this list

I think hunting is a part of our evolutionary experience in finding resources. It makes less sense now that technology and farming allow us to raise animals without hunting them. But if these hunters insist on it, just don't call it a sport, sports have level neutral rules and fields of play both sides have the opportunity to use. Hunting is not a sport, it is a trap, it is a trick. So if people  hunt, eat it, kill it quickly and as painlessly as possible and don't call it a sport.

But yea I agree, a grown man or women who thinks they are cleaver tricking an unarmed animal knowing the animal doesn't have the same ability, why would you get joy out of that? That would be like  a jock bully beating up a nerd to show off to the other jocks. It is just a childish form of narcissism.
YOu obviously have never hunted if that what you think it is.  Any true sportsman (hunter) will give the advantage to the animal by tracking it down.  Getting in a treestand is not being a true sportsman as you remove all the advatnages the animal has.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: mykcob4 on February 15, 2013, 05:54:44 PM
The NRA is on MY enemies list!
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 05:58:04 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"buttfinger,

I agree with the second part of your arguments. Regarding the first, the animals do not need the man for kill old and/or sick animals. because there are several younger males, predators and nature disasters that do that. Instead using rifles and traps, cravenly appealing to the best instrument for adaptation in this planet, the intelligence.
Taking off the cultural part that perseveres in the habit of hunting, I still think an involuted act. Anyone "infected" by civilization should have aversion to hunt for fun.

You need to look into hunting laws.  People hunting for fun are usually poachers that allow the carcass to rot.  What is the point in that?  These are sick dillusional people that need to be shot before they up their prey.  Hunting is fun, but it should be done for hte meat.  I can go out and get one deer and one elk and feed my family for an entire year.  You however will spend thousands of dollars a year on burgers alone.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 15, 2013, 06:04:34 PM
Those who haven't hunted do not know what is involved. You are stalking an animal that can smell and hear you more than two hundred yards before you see it. It is knowledgeable of humans, knowing that smells like gun oil and human sweat spell danger. It is also naturally colored to blend in with surroundings and can move with great speed when alerted. Go and scout an area prior to the hunt. You will see plenty of game. Go back for the hunt, the game will all be gone.

Out west you are talking about distances of hundreds of yards, where you can be seen from one ridge to another, wearing necessary hunter orange and smelling like a carnivore because you are a meat eater. consider the fact that in Utah and Idaho, where I have hunted, hunting success runs typically from 10/25% assuming a good year with lots of game.

You are also restricted on what you can hunt according to area and the dictates of the fish and game people. Areas that are low in animal numbers are restricted. Only areas that meet guidelines are open to hunting. In many cases you have to apply for a specific license by draws, paying extra for the opportunity.

It isn't that easy. You should also know that the money spent for licenses and draws also pays for the game management done during the year. As I said previously, hunters pay more and do more than any other group to fund the care of wildlife.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.
You are ver incorrect in this Stromboli.  It may not mention "assault" rifles by name, but it does.

"A well regulated militia, neccessarry for a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lets break this down.  What constitutes a well regulated militia?  People that own firearms that they can use to defend themselves, family, land, and country in the event of an attack on your person or freedoms.  In this day in age the best thing to use would be the AR-15 and like weapons.  The constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.  
What does infringment mean?  

in·fringe  
/in?frinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Look at the bolded definition.  They are limiting our rights to own certain guns.  Now don't go trying to make that same cockamamy argument "So why don't you just buy a tank".  I don't want one, nor do I want to be freely able to own a machine gun.  I think we have certain laws that very good that  need to be enforced.  I do however want the ability to protect my family.  If you don't want a gun, fine don't buy one, I however will own every gun that I deem suitable for me.

Also, this crap isn't about trying to limit what we can have, it's Feinstein once again testing the waters to see just how far she can go until she can get rid of all guns.  Don't believe me?

[youtubehd:26xwmjhj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-b45FdDN3s[/youtubehd:26xwmjhj]
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 15, 2013, 06:29:49 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "stromboli"I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.
You are ver incorrect in this Stromboli.  It may not mention "assault" rifles by name, but it does.

"A well regulated militia, neccessarry for a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lets break this down.  What constitutes a well regulated militia?  People that own firearms that they can use to defend themselves, family, land, and country in the event of an attack on your person or freedoms.  In this day in age the best thing to use would be the AR-15 and like weapons.  The constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.  
What does infringment mean?  

in·fringe  
/in?frinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Look at the bolded definition.  They are limiting our rights to own certain guns.  Now don't go trying to make that same cockamamy argument "So why don't you just buy a tank".  I don't want one, nor do I want to be freely able to own a machine gun.  I think we have certain laws that very good that  need to be enforced.  I do however want the ability to protect my family.  If you don't want a gun, fine don't buy one, I however will own every gun that I deem suitable for me.

Also, this crap isn't about trying to limit what we can have, it's Feinstein once again testing the waters to see just how far she can go until she can get rid of all guns.  Don't believe me?

[youtubehd:2oxie16f]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-b45FdDN3s[/youtubehd:2oxie16f]

Right. but the obvious argument is that the 2nd amendment was written when firearms were loaded by the muzzle and were good for two (2) shots a minute, assuming you knew what you are doing. And by the way, we have militias, and we used to have more of them. remember the Brady Bill? Everything that is happening now happened previously. But single ownership by an individual does not constitute a militia. And to answer a previous point I reiterate- you can hunt an animal with an assault rifle. But that is not its designed use, period.
You can also cut your lawn with a farm-size threshing machine, but that is not its designed purpose.
 You can protect your home with a shotgun and a variety of rifles. Firearms that can put out multiple rounds per second or minute raises the stigma of collateral damage. And an assault rifle's designed purpose is the killing of humans, not hunting.

If you want to have an assault rifle, form a militia and conform to the rules therein. The bigger point is that we
 need to address the problem with a complete approach. Empower the ATF to do sufficient background checks of dealers and have a consistent, across the board method of checking not only the criminal histories of potential owners and their mental health history. I don't give machetes to my grand kids to play with, we shouldn't allow  firearms in the hands of dangerous people.

Personally, I don't care if qualified people own assault rifles. Have fun. But we seriously need a way to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 06:36:44 PM
"Killing of humans"
Bullshit.  Pure and simple.  You claim by fiat that HUMANS are the only intentional target.  This is simply not the case.  Automatic weapons are the only gun that you have any merit with this argument for.  And yes, an armed populace IS a militia: the best kind of militia.  i would LOVE to see someone try to rob the local gas station, as the local populace will (and has) simply pull several guns on the perpetrator.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 06:42:27 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"Right. but the obvious argument is that the 2nd amendment was written when firearms were loaded by the muzzle and were good for two (2) shots a minute, assuming you knew what you are doing. And by the way, we have militias, and we used to have more of them. remember the Brady Bill? Everything that is happening now happened previously. But single ownership by an individual does not constitute a militia. And to answer a previous point I reiterate- you can hunt an animal with an assault rifle. But that is not its designed use, period.
You can also cut your lawn with a farm-size threshing machine, but that is not its designed purpose.
 You can protect your home with a shotgun and a variety of rifles. Firearms that can put out multiple rounds per second or minute raises the stigma of collateral damage. And an assault rifle's designed purpose is the killing of humans, not hunting.

And the easy rebuttle is that when they wrote the first amendment they had movable type machines in mind, however we are smart enough to know that video news programs are also the press and we extend that right to them.  I will say you are correct in saying that one person is not a militia, he is a part of the militia, and when you gather is family and neighbors BANG militia.  YOu are incorrect on the what you insist on calling an assault rifles purpose.  It was designed to be used for hunting/defense purposes in case the military did not pick it up.  Unfortunately for the citizens they did and now all of a sudden it is bad.

QuoteIf you want to have an assault rifle, form a militia and conform to the rules therein. The bigger point is that we
 need to address the problem with a complete approach. Empower the ATF to do sufficient background checks of dealers and have a consistent, across the board method of checking not only the criminal histories of potential owners and their mental health history. I don't give machetes to my grand kids to play with, we shouldn't allow  firearms in the hands of dangerous people.

You are obviously confused as to what a militia is.  A militia is nothing more than a body that can stand and fight without formal training.  It is the hunters and other people that know how to use a gun but do not have the knowledge that the fighting forces have (unless they previously served).  I agree that we need to be able to background checks and keep guns out of the hands of bad people, but if you take a look at all the mass shootings that they are trying to limit (which failed during the las ban by the way) you will notice that people obtained them illegaly.  Even by lying on a form in order to get a gun, it is illegal.  I think we need to expand to having to get a psych eval before hand, where that shrink will be able to delve into your history and make sure you aren't a nutjob just trying to shoot up a mall, theater, school, or any other public place.

[/quote]Personally, I don't care if qualified people own assault rifles. Have fun. But we seriously need a way to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people.[/quote]

Couldn't agree with you more.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 15, 2013, 09:24:59 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.
Good for you.  The fact remains, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, but the directed goal vocalized by the forerunners of the anti-gun movement.  It's also a slope that we've SEEN in action in Britain.
In the case of Britain, I think it's more a case of "what the fuck do we need guns for anyway?" and they just let it go, which is a perfectly respectful position. Britain never had a gun culture like ours.

Quote from: "buttfinger"They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.
This sounds suspiciously extraordinary. Prove this assertion, now.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Prove this assertion, now.
Demanding little fucker, aintcha.

http://www.britishblades.com/forums/sho ... -Knife-Law (http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?975-Summary-of-British-Knife-Law)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 15, 2013, 10:04:49 PM
QuotePersonally, I don't care if qualified people own assault rifles. Have fun. But we seriously need a way to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people.

QuoteCouldn't agree with you more.

I do care if people own assault riffles. First off, even when someone is trained like a cop, they can and do make mistakes. 9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.

And the cop out excuse used by assault riffle fans is that it is "semi automatic". The military automatics, are hardly if ever used by the soldiers on auto, there is a switch on military autos that allows them to be semi an that is what soldiers mostly use. So it is still a military style weapon even if it does not have the switch to auto capability. And tell me why you would need an assault riffle to hunt or even target shoot? You want that but you dont need it. There is a difference between want and need.

Training alone and background checks alone will not prevent even trained people from making mistakes. I just saw an interview on TV on MSNBC yesterday where a teenage police cadet in the POLICE locker room was accidentally shot in the neck by a cop who was training him, and he ended up paralyzed.

AND a TRAINED soldier just a week ago was ARMED and shot and murdered WHILE armed at a SHOOTING RANGE. So once again being trained and being armed wont prevent someone who wants to kill you from getting the jump on you before you can draw your weapon.

And military and cop trainers in shooting simulators say that MOST people make mistakes even when they are well trained.

You DO NOT need a automatic or semi automatic assault riffle anymore than you need a grenade launcher or a tank.

Not to mention you are vastly more likely to injure or kill yourself or someone you know than protect yourself from a stranger. Not to mention the amount of gun death on average 32 per DAY 365 days a year, you do the math.

This second amendment crap and fear mongering is bullshit. It is one thing to own a gun. But this is NOT about gun ownership. This is about the gun manufacturing industry wanting to keep it's market base and expand it's market base. The more crime and fear the more people want guns, the more people want guns, the more the gun makers make. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS THIS IS ABOUT CORPORATE GREED.

Gabbi giffords owns a gun but not an assault riffle. And I don't think she feels the need to own twenty or own large clips. You remember her, she was shot in AZ, a little girl along with 6 others died. Newtown last month 26. Oh and Columbine did have trained security on sight and still 13 people still died.

No, a millitia is not simply a body that can fight, I don't know where the hell you got that from, too many Mel Gibson movies. Not to mention the weapons they had back then were all muskets. I don't think you could get the founders to say sure, you the individual citizen are also entitled to a tank or jet.

If arms means anything then, even back then I could simply take off with one of their ships which has cannons on it, and even use it against Washington and Jefferson because "I have the right to bear arms". The part you keep missing about the second amendment is the word "regulated". Just like free speech does not mean you can sell porn to kids or yell fire in a theater.

No this is about money, this is not about rights.. This is about ginning up fear so gun makers can make money. We have too many guns on the street, that does not mean take away all guns. But we do need to reduce gun death, reduce the amount of guns, and ban assault riffles and huge clips. Background checks and bans for those who have mentally handicap or mentally ill living in the same dwelling as the guns are kept. The Newtown shooter had an assault riffle. The Va Tech shooter had handguns. So it isn't just about assault riffles.

AND corporate America needs to directly invest in all run down neighborhoods urban, suburban or sticks, better schools, better jobs, better pay. Crime goes down when economic stability rises. But gun makers like any business don't want to reduce sales they want to increase them.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 15, 2013, 10:14:45 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
Quote from: "buttfinger"They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.
This sounds suspiciously extraordinary. Prove this assertion, now.

Here you go. (//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.
Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

QuoteAnd tell me why you would need an assault riffle to hunt or even target shoot? You want that but you dont need it. There is a difference between want and need.
That's not your decision to make if I'm the one using it to feed my family.

QuoteAND a TRAINED soldier just a week ago was ARMED and shot and murdered WHILE armed at a SHOOTING RANGE. So once again being trained and being armed wont prevent someone who wants to kill you from getting the jump on you before you can draw your weapon.
1: He was at a park that contained a range, not at the range itself.
2: Rifles don't need to be drawn, you can't holster a rifle.  This alone shows that you know fuck all about the topic at hand.

QuoteThis second amendment crap and fear mongering is bullshit.
Call it what you will, the amendment stands.  if you don't like it, lobby to amend the constitution to repal amendment 2.  Until then, suck my pistol.

QuoteGabbi giffords owns a gun but not an assault riffle. And I don't think she feels the need to own twenty or own large clips.
Good for her.  Others who have the right to carry different weapons than her make different choices than she does.  So what?

QuoteOh and Columbine did have trained security on sight and still 13 people still died.
And yet there are NUMEROUS incidents of security guards stopping shootings.  the media, however, doesn't like to tell you these things.

QuoteNo, a millitia is not simply a body that can fight, I don't know where the hell you got that from, too many Mel Gibson movies.
Or...  The FACT that this country was liberated by farmers and blacksmiths with guns.  The fact is, a trained army is an army, a militia is an untrained army, ergo an armed populace willing to fight for home and country IS a militia and HAS fended off the army of a tyrannical dictator right here in the US.  If your claim were the case, we'd not even exist as a country.

QuoteNot to mention the weapons they had back then were all muskets. I don't think you could get the founders to say sure, you the individual citizen are also entitled to a tank or jet.
Tanks and jets are vehicles, not firearms.  Still, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that Washington wouldn't have been ECSTATIC if Sam Adams owned a B.A.R.


Your argument would hold more weight if Chicago were a safe place to walk around, knowing you won't be shot by all the firearms that nobody has because they're illegal.  As it turns out, people who are willing to murder don't GAF about gun laws.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 15, 2013, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Prove this assertion, now.
Demanding little fucker, aintcha.
Why are you surprised that I demand proof of your outrageous claim?

Quote from: "buttfinger"http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?975-Summary-of-British-Knife-Law
I do not see how this law is supposed to forbid the transport of knives in any way, or forbid their normal use as kitchen knives. Last time I checked, your home is not a public place.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Here you go. (//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)
Did you even read the tail end of the article you cited?

QuoteHome Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

Doesn't even sound like a debate for actual legislation, only a bunch of doctors making noise, and nowhere do I see "transport of a knife from the store where you just bought it to your place of residence" is not a good reason for you to have a knife.

Seriously, you're going to have to do better than this. Perhaps an actual case where some loser has been charged with possessing a kitchen knife, when he's just driving back from the knife store.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Jmpty on February 15, 2013, 10:43:55 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Brian37"9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.
Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

QuoteAnd tell me why you would need an assault riffle to hunt or even target shoot? You want that but you dont need it. There is a difference between want and need.
That's not your decision to make if I'm the one using it to feed my family.

QuoteAND a TRAINED soldier just a week ago was ARMED and shot and murdered WHILE armed at a SHOOTING RANGE. So once again being trained and being armed wont prevent someone who wants to kill you from getting the jump on you before you can draw your weapon.
1: He was at a park that contained a range, not at the range itself.
2: Rifles don't need to be drawn, you can't holster a rifle.  This alone shows that you know fuck all about the topic at hand.

QuoteThis second amendment crap and fear mongering is bullshit.
Call it what you will, the amendment stands.  if you don't like it, lobby to amend the constitution to repal amendment 2.  Until then, suck my pistol.

QuoteGabbi giffords owns a gun but not an assault riffle. And I don't think she feels the need to own twenty or own large clips.
Good for her.  Others who have the right to carry different weapons than her make different choices than she does.  So what?

QuoteOh and Columbine did have trained security on sight and still 13 people still died.
And yet there are NUMEROUS incidents of security guards stopping shootings.  the media, however, doesn't like to tell you these things.

QuoteNo, a millitia is not simply a body that can fight, I don't know where the hell you got that from, too many Mel Gibson movies.
Or...  The FACT that this country was liberated by farmers and blacksmiths with guns.  The fact is, a trained army is an army, a militia is an untrained army, ergo an armed populace willing to fight for home and country IS a militia and HAS fended off the army of a tyrannical dictator right here in the US.  If your claim were the case, we'd not even exist as a country.

QuoteNot to mention the weapons they had back then were all muskets. I don't think you could get the founders to say sure, you the individual citizen are also entitled to a tank or jet.
Tanks and jets are vehicles, not firearms.  Still, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that Washington wouldn't have been ECSTATIC if Sam Adams owned a B.A.R.


Your argument would hold more weight if Chicago were a safe place to walk around, knowing you won't be shot by all the firearms that nobody has because they're illegal.  As it turns out, people who are willing to murder don't GAF about gun laws.

You really don't know shit about anything, do you? You just like to run your mouth. So I have observed. You just seem to spew right wing talking points, or just make shit up as you go. Are you experienced with firearms? It doesn't seem as if you are.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 15, 2013, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Brian37"9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.
Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

I'm going to have to argue that one. A Winchester Ranger T-Series 127 grain +P+ 9mm (probably the hottest factory loaded 9mm) runs about 1250 fps and 441 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle of 5" barrel. A 62 grain 5.56 NATO round leaves a 20" barrel at 3100 fps with 1300 plus foot pounds of energy. The little 62 grain 5.56 is still carrying about 450 foot pounds of energy at 300 yards. That's more than the 9mm has point blank.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 11:04:42 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"
QuotePersonally, I don't care if qualified people own assault rifles. Have fun. But we seriously need a way to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people.

QuoteCouldn't agree with you more.

I do care if people own assault riffles. First off, even when someone is trained like a cop, they can and do make mistakes. 9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.

And the cop out excuse used by assault riffle fans is that it is "semi automatic". The military automatics, are hardly if ever used by the soldiers on auto, there is a switch on military autos that allows them to be semi an that is what soldiers mostly use. So it is still a military style weapon even if it does not have the switch to auto capability. And tell me why you would need an assault riffle to hunt or even target shoot? You want that but you dont need it. There is a difference between want and need.

Training alone and background checks alone will not prevent even trained people from making mistakes. I just saw an interview on TV on MSNBC yesterday where a teenage police cadet in the POLICE locker room was accidentally shot in the neck by a cop who was training him, and he ended up paralyzed.

AND a TRAINED soldier just a week ago was ARMED and shot and murdered WHILE armed at a SHOOTING RANGE. So once again being trained and being armed wont prevent someone who wants to kill you from getting the jump on you before you can draw your weapon.

And military and cop trainers in shooting simulators say that MOST people make mistakes even when they are well trained.

You DO NOT need a automatic or semi automatic assault riffle anymore than you need a grenade launcher or a tank.

Not to mention you are vastly more likely to injure or kill yourself or someone you know than protect yourself from a stranger. Not to mention the amount of gun death on average 32 per DAY 365 days a year, you do the math.

This second amendment crap and fear mongering is bullshit. It is one thing to own a gun. But this is NOT about gun ownership. This is about the gun manufacturing industry wanting to keep it's market base and expand it's market base. The more crime and fear the more people want guns, the more people want guns, the more the gun makers make. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS THIS IS ABOUT CORPORATE GREED.

Gabbi giffords owns a gun but not an assault riffle. And I don't think she feels the need to own twenty or own large clips. You remember her, she was shot in AZ, a little girl along with 6 others died. Newtown last month 26. Oh and Columbine did have trained security on sight and still 13 people still died.

No, a millitia is not simply a body that can fight, I don't know where the hell you got that from, too many Mel Gibson movies. Not to mention the weapons they had back then were all muskets. I don't think you could get the founders to say sure, you the individual citizen are also entitled to a tank or jet.

If arms means anything then, even back then I could simply take off with one of their ships which has cannons on it, and even use it against Washington and Jefferson because "I have the right to bear arms". The part you keep missing about the second amendment is the word "regulated". Just like free speech does not mean you can sell porn to kids or yell fire in a theater.

No this is about money, this is not about rights.. This is about ginning up fear so gun makers can make money. We have too many guns on the street, that does not mean take away all guns. But we do need to reduce gun death, reduce the amount of guns, and ban assault riffles and huge clips. Background checks and bans for those who have mentally handicap or mentally ill living in the same dwelling as the guns are kept. The Newtown shooter had an assault riffle. The Va Tech shooter had handguns. So it isn't just about assault riffles.

AND corporate America needs to directly invest in all run down neighborhoods urban, suburban or sticks, better schools, better jobs, better pay. Crime goes down when economic stability rises. But gun makers like any business don't want to reduce sales they want to increase them.

Blah Blah Blah, liberal bullshit that shows you don't understand a damn thing about guns. How about you learn some shit about them and then come talk to me sweet-cheeks.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: "Jmpty"
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Brian37"9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.
Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

QuoteAnd tell me why you would need an assault riffle to hunt or even target shoot? You want that but you dont need it. There is a difference between want and need.
That's not your decision to make if I'm the one using it to feed my family.

QuoteAND a TRAINED soldier just a week ago was ARMED and shot and murdered WHILE armed at a SHOOTING RANGE. So once again being trained and being armed wont prevent someone who wants to kill you from getting the jump on you before you can draw your weapon.
1: He was at a park that contained a range, not at the range itself.
2: Rifles don't need to be drawn, you can't holster a rifle.  This alone shows that you know fuck all about the topic at hand.

QuoteThis second amendment crap and fear mongering is bullshit.
Call it what you will, the amendment stands.  if you don't like it, lobby to amend the constitution to repal amendment 2.  Until then, suck my pistol.

QuoteGabbi giffords owns a gun but not an assault riffle. And I don't think she feels the need to own twenty or own large clips.
Good for her.  Others who have the right to carry different weapons than her make different choices than she does.  So what?

QuoteOh and Columbine did have trained security on sight and still 13 people still died.
And yet there are NUMEROUS incidents of security guards stopping shootings.  the media, however, doesn't like to tell you these things.

QuoteNo, a millitia is not simply a body that can fight, I don't know where the hell you got that from, too many Mel Gibson movies.
Or...  The FACT that this country was liberated by farmers and blacksmiths with guns.  The fact is, a trained army is an army, a militia is an untrained army, ergo an armed populace willing to fight for home and country IS a militia and HAS fended off the army of a tyrannical dictator right here in the US.  If your claim were the case, we'd not even exist as a country.

QuoteNot to mention the weapons they had back then were all muskets. I don't think you could get the founders to say sure, you the individual citizen are also entitled to a tank or jet.
Tanks and jets are vehicles, not firearms.  Still, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that Washington wouldn't have been ECSTATIC if Sam Adams owned a B.A.R.


Your argument would hold more weight if Chicago were a safe place to walk around, knowing you won't be shot by all the firearms that nobody has because they're illegal.  As it turns out, people who are willing to murder don't GAF about gun laws.

You really don't know shit about anything, do you? You just like to run your mouth. So I have observed. You just seem to spew right wing talking points, or just make shit up as you go. Are you experienced with firearms? It doesn't seem as if you are.

Gauranteed he knows more than you fuckin retards.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2013, 11:15:52 PM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Brian37"9 trained cops in NY shot and injured several bystanders just a while ago. And that was with handguns.
Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

I'm going to have to argue that one. A Winchester Ranger T-Series 127 grain +P+ 9mm (probably the hottest factory loaded 9mm) runs about 1250 fps and 441 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle of 5" barrel. A 62 grain 5.56 NATO round leaves a 20" barrel at 3100 fps with 1300 plus foot pounds of energy. The little 62 grain 5.56 is still carrying about 450 foot pounds of energy at 300 yards. That's more than the 9mm has point blank.

There is more to it than just force.  The Winchester 127 grain rounds are designed for better expansion than the 5.56 NATO full metal jacket.  In fact the military just changed the 5.56mm to increase stopping power as they are highly ineffective in close quarter situations let alone long distance.  You can't win a war if you hit your target and they keep coming at you.  On average it takes two in the chest in a tiny room in an Afghan village to put someone down.  How many do you think it'll take at 300 meters?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Jmpty on February 15, 2013, 11:27:01 PM
I have fired thousands of rounds with an M16. You don't know shit. Are you a troll or just really that ignorant?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 11:44:42 PM
Quote from: "Jmpty"I have fired thousands of rounds with an M16. You don't know shit. Are you a troll or just really that ignorant?
:lol:
He's CURRENTLY deployed doing the very thing you claim to be in the know about.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 11:54:58 PM
I love it how lefties call me a right-wing dick, but fanatical right-wingers call me a commie.  Nothing says "my own opinion" like the established groups thinking I belong to a different one.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Jmpty on February 16, 2013, 12:00:35 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"I love it how lefties call me a right-wing dick, but fanatical right-wingers call me a commie.  Nothing says "my own opinion" like the established groups thinking I belong to a different one.

I just call you an idiot fucking troll.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 12:06:35 AM
Quote from: "Jmpty"I just call you an idiot fucking troll.
I couldn't care less what you call me.  You're a retard and clearly a liar, so your opinion means fuck-all to me.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Jmpty on February 16, 2013, 12:09:33 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Jmpty"I just call you an idiot fucking troll.
I couldn't care less what you call me.  You're a retard and clearly a liar, so your opinion means fuck-all to me.

 A retard? Grow the fuck up. Lie about what? You are seriously disturbed.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 12:14:49 AM
Quote from: "Jmpty"A retard? Grow the fuck up. Lie about what? You are seriously disturbed.
Coming from a guy who started with the ad-homs several posts ago, this is ironic as fuck.  Physician, heal thyself.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 12:32:01 AM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
Quote from: "buttfinger"Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

I'm going to have to argue that one. A Winchester Ranger T-Series 127 grain +P+ 9mm (probably the hottest factory loaded 9mm) runs about 1250 fps and 441 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle of 5" barrel. A 62 grain 5.56 NATO round leaves a 20" barrel at 3100 fps with 1300 plus foot pounds of energy. The little 62 grain 5.56 is still carrying about 450 foot pounds of energy at 300 yards. That's more than the 9mm has point blank.

There is more to it than just force.  The Winchester 127 grain rounds are designed for better expansion than the 5.56 NATO full metal jacket.  In fact the military just changed the 5.56mm to increase stopping power as they are highly ineffective in close quarter situations let alone long distance.  You can't win a war if you hit your target and they keep coming at you.  On average it takes two in the chest in a tiny room in an Afghan village to put someone down.  How many do you think it'll take at 300 meters?
You said, "...round that has a greater impact velocity." You were wrong, and I pointed that out.

As far as through and throughs go velocity and yaw are everything when talking about M855's and soft tissue hits. The bullets need to either be going above 2900 fps or slightly yawed when they hit to perform in soft tissue. M4's are at a disadvantage from the start due to their lower muzzle velocity. Even something like heavy clothing slows the round down enough so that it does not fragment on impact. They can still be effective if the bullet has a slight yaw when it hits. But if a bullet is going slow and straight at impact it keeps going straight. It makes smaller temporary and permanent wound cavities. Sometimes the round was going straight, sometimes it was yawed. They were all going to slow for the design. That's why some soldiers had through and through close quarters hits and some didn't. Low velocity and inconsistent performance was the issue not some inherent advantage of pistol rounds over the 5.56.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 12:45:47 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"You were wrong,
Member identification fail.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 12:47:34 AM
Sorry, guess I confused the brothers...
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 12:50:14 AM
It's understandable, since our names are so similar.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:07:56 AM
Less to do with names than with the similar content of your posts.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 01:11:53 AM
Wow.  it really shouldn't be that hard to tell us apart, unless you're just skimming for strawmen.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:18:40 AM
Strawmen? Now I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't paying any attention to names. When I read your post I thought you were him. Understandable since you were defending his post.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Aroura33 on February 16, 2013, 01:20:59 AM
So Beavis and Butthead are the new members here?  Welcome!
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 01:22:29 AM
Quote from: "Aroura33"So Beavis and Butthead are the new members here?  Welcome!
Why thank you.  Glad to be here with all you fine fellows.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 16, 2013, 01:23:23 AM
First, I'll say that I think the obvious answer it to marry technology to firearms in order to insure that only the authorized owner/user, having cleared a recurrent background check, is able to fire a particular weapon.  The guns used in the NewTown murders were stolen from the murderer's mother.  She hadn't secured them; she was an irresponsible gun owner, and paid with her life before her guns were used to murder 26 others.  Had those weapons been equipped with RFID or fingerprint interlocks on the triggers, her son would not have been so mercilessly effective on his rampage.

I know that fingerprint scanners in particular are imperfect technology, in the sense that they often misscan prints, or take too long to process a scan, but the technology can be perfected, I think.  And I think it should.

I also think that mental health background checks should be required of gun-purchasers.  If a person has been recently treated for mental illnesses which have an associated high rate of violence, they should be forbidden the right to buy a gun.  A 5150 hold or prescription to psychoactive anti-depressants, especially the MAOIs which seem to have unpredictable effects, should be a bar.  Those judgments should have an appeals process available, but that process should require the permit-applicant to show up in person in a court so that a judge may interview him personally before overturning any recommendation to bar the weapons purchase.

I don't own any guns, and never have as an adult.  I've recently moved to the country and will be buying a shotgun soon, because the nearest police station is 20 minutes away at high speed.  I'm comfortable with guns, having learned how to shoot at an early age, and having shot expert in the Air Force (40/40 at 100 yds).  I also don't think the Constitution should be amended to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals.  Just because Joe Blow yelled fire in a theater, we should not have to clear our speech with a government agency, to my mind.

I believe that the problem of unauthorized firearms users committing crimes can be addressed without abrogating the rights of law-abiding users.  It will require a willingness to work towards the center, on the parts of extremists on both sides.  Will it happen?  I don't know.  But if it doesn't happen, the straws in the wind tell me that gun-banners  will carry the day in the end.

Quote from: "stromboli"I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.

If original intent is that important, are we ready to ban abortions, then?  Those aren't mentioned anywhere in our founding documents.

While I agree with the majority of your expressed sentiment, it's only fair to point out that the First Amendment doesn't mention the Internet, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't mention hard drives.

If you wish to apply this principle to gun ownership, you must be prepared for the political blowback of conservative gun owners hoisting you upon your own petard regarding other freedoms that we hold dear, as well, with respect to their expression using modern technology.

Quote from: "Brian37"No not even then. Animals do not have the same level of thought. A spear is long and still with a blade on it still would give the man an advantage. And with the right training a man can do what bullfighters do(another barbaric event, I refuse to call it a sport).

A man could not win a fight with no weapons against those predators and a spear would give the man an advantage. A simple bowie knife would be an advantage although it would allow for close contact, that would be about as close to fair as I could come, but even with just a knife a deep stab or several deep stabs on the body will kill the animal if left untreated.

Man's weapon is his brain, which enabled him to design and build those blades, and stalk his prey.

I don't hunt, and I've never hunted, but I eat meat, and I think that for myself I ought to start hunting, if for no other reason than to remove any detachment from the fact that my meals arise from killing other living things.  I know that some hunters hunt for that reason.  

I also think you're underestimating the dangers involved in hunting with a spear.  Do you know how fast wild animals can move?  A spear requires a minimum distance for effective use.  Let a wild animal in fight-or-flight mode inside that radius and see how deadly that spear is.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 01:24:17 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Strawmen? Now I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't paying any attention to names. When I read your post I thought you were him. Understandable since you were defending his post.
Face
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 16, 2013, 01:25:13 AM
Also, I'm wondering if there's a rule here requiring personal attacks in every thread here?  There's a sad lack of civil discussion here, in quite a few of the threads I've read.

If you can't make your point without resorting to insults, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with, I reckon.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:26:19 AM
Which one of you two is it that is deployed? Or is both of you? Or was that Wolf?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 01:26:39 AM
Quote from: "Jmpty"I have fired thousands of rounds with an M16. You don't know shit. Are you a troll or just really that ignorant?
Thousands? That's it?  That's me on a good day son. How bout ou bring your happy ass to Afghanistan and I can show you what I don't know.  Dumbass.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 01:27:58 AM
Asshat is deployed.  I am ineligible for service due to a minor shortage of pigment in my eye that they find unacceptable.  Wolf is on america's wang.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 01:33:01 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Which one of you two is it that is deployed? Or is both of you? Or was that Wolf?
I would be the deployed one.  I have deployed a few times before and am hoping this is my last being that I have missed half of my kids lives.  I am wondering what your qualifications are seeing how mush of what you post is flawed, you do know more than most of these people posting about guns, but I still find it lacking.  Did you serve?  What do you know about the current rounds?  I await your answer.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:35:40 AM
What did you do to the network asshat? Everything I've tried to send to @mail.mil has bounced for two days now.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 01:38:45 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"What did you do to the network asshat? Everything I've tried to send to @mail.mil has bounced for two days now.
You must not serve, if you did you would understand why.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:40:01 AM
Not much. I've been out since 87. I did discuss how much shooting currently serving troops do these days with the recently (couple of years ago) retired post sargent major at Bragg a couple of weeks ago over steaks and beer though. I also try to keep my skills current...

Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"What did you do to the network asshat? Everything I've tried to send to @mail.mil has bounced for two days now.
You must not serve, if you did you would understand why.
lol
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 01:53:04 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Not much. I've been out since 87. I did discuss how much shooting currently serving troops do these days with the recently (couple of years ago) retired post sargent major at Bragg a couple of weeks ago over steaks and beer though. I also try to keep my skills current...


Ya dude, you are way out of the loop if you've been out since '87 and the old CSM has been out a couple of years.  They have made quite a few changes in the service.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:56:59 AM
Such as?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 02:00:03 AM
The camouflage sucks now.  It was so much cooler when Jesse Ventura sported a minigun.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 02:10:43 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Such as?
Just about everything you knew while you were in.  I already told you they changed the rounds, they have gone almost strictly to drone attacks, we mostly train the Afghans now.  The general way we operate has all but thrown the rules and regulations out the window.  If we do use ground forces to go into town we have to be very diplomatic.  We aren't so much a military as "speak softly and carry a big stick" has a whole new meaning
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 02:11:23 AM
ACU was a compromise that didn't work well for shit. I on the other hand was issued OD fatigues and khakis. I had to buy my damn multicam.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 02:21:49 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"ACU was a compromise that didn't work well for shit. I on the other hand was issued OD fatigues and khakis. I had to buy my damn multicam.

I'm wondering when you multicam seeing how you've been out since 87.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 02:27:58 AM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"ACU was a compromise that didn't work well for shit. I on the other hand was issued OD fatigues and khakis. I had to buy my damn multicam.

I'm wondering when you multicam seeing how you've been out since 87.

What did they call the pattern on the BDU's they made me buy starting in 81? I thought it was multicam. Looked like multicam to me but that could just be faulty memory.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 02:35:18 AM
Woodland Camo.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 02:47:14 AM
I looked woodland up. Apparently the marines are starting to issue it again to some units.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 06:20:54 AM
So the military has what 2 million , probably many who also shoot those M-16s, and  I bet if you talked to enough military and former military you'd find just because they share the same label "soldier" does not mean they think you need an assault riffle. But I bet you think everyone who owns a gun, or is or was in the military all if them would agree with you? You are absolutely sure of that? I would bet my life sharing a label wont mean all of them do. So if you wont listen to me go talk to soldiers who disagree with you, but I doubt you'd take the time to do that. You'll just assume there are none.

Secondly tanks and jets are NOT just vehicles, they ARE weapons of war. It is fucking asinine to claim they are not used for violence. Thats like saying a bayonette is just a knife and is not part of the riffle. Word games dont work.

Third, and exactly how do you think under a republican or democratic president, ETHER WAY, do you think you could overthrow the government with even just assault riffles? The reason I talk about tanks and jets IS BECAUSE you would need an equal amount or superior resources as compared to the government. You think you can overthrow the government with just riffles? I think you underestimate the amount of people who think they can, or even want to.

 EVEN GUN owners most, do not want to overthrow the government. There is just a small number of tea party gun nuts, MOST of the country, both left and right don't give one shit about overthrowing the government.

The second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.

No one wants to take away all guns. The bottom line is that this is about gun makers and money. This is about gun makers not giving a shit about reducing gun death. This is about money and profits, not safety or gun rights.

And jets are not just vehicles, they ARE flying guns. Their missiles are like the bullets of a gun and the cockpit is the trigger and the pilot is the trigger puller. And tanks are moving guns, the shells are like the bullets of the gun and the driver is the trigger puller. They are both moving guns.   If they were just vehicles they wouldn't need weapons or have them.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 07:09:38 AM
I was born under Nixon, since then we have had Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and now Obama. Power has shifted both ways in that time and GUESS WHAT, the world has not come to an end.

Gun nutters have allowed the extreme right wing and gun industry to scare the shit out of them just so their corporate overlords could make money.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 08:10:00 AM
Quote from: "Brian37"But I bet you think everyone who owns a gun, or is or was in the military all if them would agree with you?
You're tho only one claiming this.  Strawman rejected.

QuoteSecondly tanks and jets are NOT just vehicles, they ARE weapons of war.
Nobody's claimed this.  It's a second strawman.  Even so, it bears addressing.  The second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to vehicles of war, or to cannons, or mortars, etc.  It guarantees me the right to arm myself as a ground troop for militia purposes.

Quotedo you think you could overthrow the government with even just assault riffles?
Yet another strawman.  Strike three, you're a retard.  Nobody's claimed that having a non-assualt-rifle is going to give a small group of people the ability to overthrow the government, only that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves and allow us to try it.

QuoteThe second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.
Bad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts, semiautomatic rifles ARE firearms.  If you don't like it, lobby ot repeal the 2nd amendment.

QuoteNo one wants to take away all guns.
Bullshit.  Proof of that was already posted here earlier by asshat.  Next you'll be telling me that the nanny-staters aren't trying to outlaw smoking.  But they are, they're just taking baby steps.  This is baby step one in an effort to take our guns, and then move on to pointy knives.  Move to England, they've already taken all those baby steps and are working on the knives.  You can go hang out with people as retarded as yourself and not have to worry about scary looking guns with a black plastic stock.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: "Brian37"Gun nutters have allowed the extreme right wing and gun industry to scare the shit out of them just so their corporate overlords could make money.
Said the retard who can't see past Feinstein's propaganda and can't make an argument that actually addresses what anyone else said.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 08:28:51 AM
I see you idiots can't actually address any arguments made.  Keep beating those strawmen.  maybe someday a member will come along who your arguments apply to.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Err...You are the idiot that's been slapped around here kiddo.
Those strawmen you've been slapping don't even RESEMBLE me.

QuoteYou really should change your tone and attitude if you want to communicate with people here.
I did.  I changed my tone from a calm discussion to the shit-slinging that I saw going on around me.  I figured oit was the tone this forum WANTED.

QuoteYou're in an embarrassing situation.
I'm sorry you're embarrassed.  Maybe if you didn't treat people like shit, they wouldn't embarrass you.

QuoteGain some self awareness. Most people at least wait to see what's froum like to act like the way you do.
I'm actually VERY self aware.  And I did wait to see what the forum was like, then I adjusted my posting style to match it.

QuoteExcept the religious nuts of course, but they have an agenda. What's your problem?
Just returning the tone that was sent my way up front.  Don't like it?  Don't treat n0o0bs the same way you're complaining I now treat others.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 09:31:34 AM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"You write your opinion or start a debate.
Did that.  Got called names for it.

QuotePeople do not have to agree with you or even respond to your posts while posting to that thread.
Agreed.  But that's not what's happening.  People who disagree with me just started calling me names, instead of addressing my points.  In this thread, they called me names based on points I never made, and keep addressing something they made up instead of something I said.  I'm just showing you how people respond to that.  When we treated new people like that over at TU, we ended up with a mere 8 members for it.  N00bs wouldn't stay and the old-timers got sick of not having new conversation.  Keep treating new members how you do, and that's what will eventually happen here.

QuoteYou have no self awareness what's so ever.
And clearly you're psychic enough to know that through a computer.
QuoteI have heard that you were just telling how you hated and never believed in 'attacks'. You are the one doing it right now as much as I can see.
Just responding to what I was given in the first place.

QuoteI am a reactive person and I sometimes tend to get pissed off and yell around. It doesn't work. I enjoy here now much better since I tried to dropped that attitude. And NO that's not this forum WANTS. Yes sometimes it feels like you are the only one who is seeing the real point in a discussion, or people seem not ot see what they should...blah blah but that doesn't mean anything when you cannot exchange what you see.
Reaction doesn't work for SOME things.  Depends on the goal.  it works fine for some other goals.




Quote:shock: Look at me being resonable and sensible and all about posting style...*Whistles. AITM! Slap me hard dear, something is happening to me! *Fans herself...
I AM shocked.  It's clearly not the norm around here.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"buttfinger, do you know how old this forum is?
Why should I care if it's a week, a month, or a decade?  A circle-jerk is a circle-jerk.  Or is it that it's so old that's it's not a circle-jerk so much as an old-boy's club?  Either way, it's the same thing really.

QuoteYou are still making the same mistake. You are seeing here as a little place where similar people are agreeing witch each other on the same topics. NAAH. Sorry to bust your bubble.
And yet name-calling abounds to the those who do not agree, ergo it IS a place where opinions are required to be the same all around.

QuoteGo insult back to people who insulted you or better report them. Again, how old are you? You are babbling nonsense. "They called me names over there, so I am insulting eveyone I see!". :lol:  
That's where i started, then then buddy-bandwagon got rolling.  So yeah.

Hey look, I can link irrelevant images too!
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Colanth on February 16, 2013, 09:58:59 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"The second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to vehicles of war, or to cannons, or mortars, etc.  It guarantees me the right to arm myself as a ground troop for militia purposes.
"Arms" doesn't mean something you can carry in your arms, it means armaments - including tanks, jets and SAMs.  The second, read literally, guarantees your right to bear all of them - as part of a well-regulated militia.

QuoteNobody's claimed that having a non-assualt-rifle is going to give a small group of people the ability to overthrow the government, only that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves and allow us to try it.
It gives us the right to be part of a well-regulated militia and, as a part of that, to bear arms.  Stop quoting half-sentences.

(The SCOTUS is the final arbiter, but that doesn't make it always correct.)

Quote
QuoteThe second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.
Bad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts
Good analogy - parking lots and hitching posts are both where transportation is left when we're not using it to travel.

Quote
QuoteNo one wants to take away all guns.
Bullshit.  Proof of that was already posted here earlier by asshat.
Assertions (and incorrect ones at that) aren't proof.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 10:08:32 AM
Quote from: "Colanth""Arms" doesn't mean something you can carry in your arms, it means armaments - including tanks, jets and SAMs.  The second, read literally, guarantees your right to bear all of them - as part of a well-regulated militia.
Then your interpretation of it is that we have the right to own a jet.  They're a bit cost-prohibitive to me personally though.  The fact remains, if you don't like it, the 2nd amendment needs to be appealed.

QuoteIt gives us the right to be part of a well-regulated militia and, as a part of that, to bear arms.  Stop quoting half-sentences.
You only restated what I did, but in different terms and from a different angle.  I DO have the right to TRY to overthrow the government.  I'm personally not going to get myself burned alive in a cabin on Big Bear mountain, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to TRY it.

QuoteBad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts
Good analogy - parking lots and hitching posts are both where transportation is left when we're not using it to travel.[/quote]
Their function is the same, their form is not, unlike rifles which have the same form, but with upgraded efficiency.

QuoteAssertions (and incorrect ones at that) aren't proof.
Assertions are not proof, but video of the forerunner of the whole thing SAYING EXACTLY that IS proof, ergo not a false assertion.

But here, let me share it again, just for you.
[youtubehd:1m7w0jf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnyc2vzgJE8[/youtubehd:1m7w0jf8]
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 16, 2013, 10:25:41 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.
Good for you.  The fact remains, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, but the directed goal vocalized by the forerunners of the anti-gun movement.  It's also a slope that we've SEEN in action in Britain.  They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.  Britain is at a place were I don't want to be, and the nanny-staters who are seeking to ban "assault rifles" have openly admitted that it's their goal to legislate us into the same place.

1. You need documentation to transport knives over borders in many countries. Australia and New Zealand to name a few (and for good reason, obviously).

 You do not need any documentation at all to 'transport' knives from one place to another within England and Wales (I don't know about Scotland). You do not need documentation to show that you're a chef or to show that you're a carrying kitchen knives (???). I think you may have just made that up, unless you've got evidence of the legislation? It's certainly not in the Criminal Jusitce Act (1988), or any subsequent amendments to said legislation, that I've ever read.

2. I have never seen any debate in parliament or in any legislative body (local, national or intra national) about banning knives that are 'too pointy' (???). This seems rather nonsensical and so subjective it would disolve under any legislative scrutiny. That said, Evidence please if you think you are right and I will reassess my stance.

3. I fully accept that argument that the US, culturally (if one can use that word), is completely different to the UK and many other states that both outlaw and legalise guns within their state.

The evolution of gun laws in the UK is complex, more complex that many would actually believe. I'm sure most people have heard of Northern Ireland for example, where, despite a de facto outlawing of guns, a large number of terrorist organisations still retained large stockpiles of weapons, garnered (ironically) from donors in the US and from other organisations in South America (eg IRA's and UU's).

The two ways to solve the dilemma of serious gun crime (and more), were either to increase gun control and use other legislative means to restrict the use of weapons (including engaging with communities and fostering a greater sense of unity), or to liberalise gun control, arm more people, and use the logic that a better armed populace is a better prepared one.

They went with the former, and hey presto, 'the troubles' dissolved and instances of gun crime (despite still being evident even till today) reduced dramatically. NI have gone form one of the most deprived areas in Europe to being one of the most affluent in growth terms (prior to the recession). Again, not applicable to the US, but evidence of gun control working to a great degree to the benefit of almost everyone who were tired of guns being fired every other day in their neighbourhoods.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 16, 2013, 10:33:43 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
Quote from: "buttfinger"They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.
This sounds suspiciously extraordinary. Prove this assertion, now.

Here you go. (//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)

???

Popeyes, that is a BBC article not a green or white paper published by parliament seeking to exercise a debate for the purpose of forming legislation on the banning of 'blades that are too pointy".

Again, the CJA 1988 and all subsequent legislation amendments through various papers (you can search for them all either through Hansard [debates] or through the home office) has never once done or sought to do anything similar to what was proposed. It is false until proven otherwise p.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 10:37:25 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)
"Pointy knives" debate.

http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29 (http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29)
Quote from: "the article"Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a bona fide reason for carrying a knife (if this is the case).
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 10:44:43 AM
I stand corrected.  Parliament is not the body at the base of the debate.  It is a university that promotes nannyism in government who are debating that.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 16, 2013, 10:51:07 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"I stand corrected.  Parliament is not the body at the base of the debate.  It is a university that promotes nannyism in government who are debating that.

I was posting my reply when I read this, but I'll post it anyway :):

Quote from: "buttfinger"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
"Pointy knives" debate.

http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29 (http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29)
Quote from: "the article"Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a bona fide reason for carrying a knife (if this is the case).

Thanks, I'll look up the final URL and get back to you.

-----

Ok, it's just an appraisal of the CJA (1988), and is actually out of date. But anyway, I must say, however, that I know there's no legislation, nor is there any appetite or tabled debate to create any legislation, that either:

1. Is seeking to enforce legislative powers banning blades that are 'too pointy' (the article cited is a BBC articles that is years old, and is not, in fact, a tabled motion of parliament) or.:
2. is seeking to outlaw the carrying of knives per se (or the enforcement of one having documentation to prove that the reason you are carrying knives is valid).

To use an example:

The CJA (1988) outlaws the carrying and concealing of any blade (from your own link):

""It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches." [CJA 1988 section 139(1)]"

And further:

"The phrase "good reason" is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Examples of bona fide reasons which have been accepted include: a knife required for ones trade (e.g. a chefs knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan)."

You said in your original post that I quoted that you need documentation to carry a knife. This is false. You need a valid 'reason' (such as being a chef or a butcher to use your examples, which are good reasons). Just carrying a knife in the street for no reason is not a good reason, however, the worst that will often happen to you is that it will be confiscated and destroyed, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you have used it for nefarious means, in which case, you will end up in jail.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 10:52:45 AM
I never said "circle of jerks", I said "circle-jerk".  It's a term used to describe all-male bukkake that has been since converted to mean "one person posts an opinion and everyone else ego-strokes them".
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"You said in your original post that I quoted that you need documentation to carry a knife. This is false. You need a valid 'reason' (such as being a chef or a butcher to use your examples, which are good reasons). Just carrying a knife in the street for no reason is not a good reason, however, the worst that will often happen to you is that it will be confiscated and destroyed, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you have used it for nefarious means, in which case, you will end up in jail.
Fair enough, though I still see it as an unacceptable level of nannyism.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 16, 2013, 11:11:28 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"You said in your original post that I quoted that you need documentation to carry a knife. This is false. You need a valid 'reason' (such as being a chef or a butcher to use your examples, which are good reasons). Just carrying a knife in the street for no reason is not a good reason, however, the worst that will often happen to you is that it will be confiscated and destroyed, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you have used it for nefarious means, in which case, you will end up in jail.
Fair enough, though I still see it as an unacceptable level of nannyism.

Ok cool, guess we'll just agree to disagree.

If you ever come to the UK you need to go for a night out in Burnley...I can't really explain it, you'll understand if you do it, lol.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"If you ever come to the UK you need to go for a night out in Burnley...I can't really explain it, you'll understand if you do it, lol.
Dangerous, or "Big Brother"?

I do kind of understand it.  Since you guys outlawed guns, there is a TON of knife-violence.  The difference I see is that parliament is blaming the tool, rather than the criminal.  Criminals don't care about the law, so they'll still do what they want, and they've got a criminal mind, so even completely eradicating the tool will merely lead to different tools being used.  People were committing murder with rocks long before knives were invented, and they were committing murder with knives long before guns were invented.  Banning the tool doesn't stop anything.

It does make me wonder though, how do unarmed police enforce all this?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 11:22:06 AM
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Here you go. (//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)

???

Popeyes, that is a BBC article not a green or white paper published by parliament seeking to exercise a debate for the purpose of forming legislation on the banning of 'blades that are too pointy".

Again, the CJA 1988 and all subsequent legislation amendments through various papers (you can search for them all either through Hansard [debates] or through the home office) has never once done or sought to do anything similar to what was proposed. It is false until proven otherwise p.

I didn't see the first response before I posted Fidel. Never the less this article seems to support the Bobbsey Troll's assertion that 1) You have to be able to document need to have a long pointed knife in public.

QuoteThe law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

...

An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

2) There is a debate going on that includes talk of banning blades that are too pointy including kitchen knives.

QuoteThe researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."
Whether or not it is an official debate on the floor of parliament is irrelevant. It has been proposed by the scientific community and the home office (whoever that is) has at least entertained the idea. So unless you are suggesting the BBC is lying in the article I'd say the OP's assertions appear to be true.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Colanth on February 16, 2013, 11:31:50 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Colanth""Arms" doesn't mean something you can carry in your arms, it means armaments - including tanks, jets and SAMs.  The second, read literally, guarantees your right to bear all of them - as part of a well-regulated militia.
Then your interpretation of it is that we have the right to own a jet.
It's a poor parent who doesn't recognize its own child.

Quote
QuoteIt gives us the right to be part of a well-regulated militia and, as a part of that, to bear arms.  Stop quoting half-sentences.
You only restated what I did, but in different terms and from a different angle.  I DO have the right to TRY to overthrow the government.
According to the second - which is your argument - only as part of a well-regulated militia.

QuoteI'm personally not going to get myself burned alive in a cabin on Big Bear mountain, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to TRY it.
Dorner wasn't trying to overthrow the government, he was seeking revenge against individuals by murdering them.

Quote
Quote
QuoteBad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts
Good analogy - parking lots and hitching posts are both where transportation is left when we're not using it to travel.
Their function is the same, their form is not, unlike rifles which have the same form, but with upgraded efficiency.
The ability to spray 100 bullets all over creation without the ability to aim isn't an increase in efficiency.  The ability to kill your prey at 500 yards with a single shot is.  And you can't do that with an assault rifle.

Quote
Quote
QuoteAssertions (and incorrect ones at that) aren't proof.
Assertions are not proof, but video of the forerunner of the whole thing SAYING EXACTLY that IS proof, ergo not a false assertion.

But here, let me share it again, just for you.
[spoil:3o1lnai5][youtubehd:3o1lnai5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnyc2vzgJE8[/youtubehd:3o1lnai5]
[/spoil:3o1lnai5]Oh, you mean your totally dishonest assertion that "ban all assault rifles" means "ban all firearms"?

We've seen your kind here before, misrepresenting what you post in the hope that no one actually thinks about your silly assertions.  They didn't end well.  You won't either if you keep insisting on being an idiot.

As far as banning all assault rifles, the Constitution doesn't give you an unfettered right to own one, so that's a dog that won't hunt.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 16, 2013, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Here you go. (//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)

???

Popeyes, that is a BBC article not a green or white paper published by parliament seeking to exercise a debate for the purpose of forming legislation on the banning of 'blades that are too pointy".

Again, the CJA 1988 and all subsequent legislation amendments through various papers (you can search for them all either through Hansard [debates] or through the home office) has never once done or sought to do anything similar to what was proposed. It is false until proven otherwise p.

I didn't see the first response before I posted Fidel. Never the less this article seems to support the Bobbsey Troll's assertion that 1) You have to be able to document need to have a long pointed knife in public.

QuoteThe law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

...

An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

2) There is a debate going on that includes talk of banning blades that are too pointy including kitchen knives.

QuoteThe researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."
Whether or not it is an official debate on the floor of parliament is irrelevant. It has been proposed by the scientific community and the home office (whoever that is) has at least entertained the idea. So unless you are suggesting the BBC is lying in the article I'd say the OP's assertions appear to be true.

Not to bring up old topics but the chap said that on needs documentation on you if you're travelling with a knife. The isn't true, and Whilst sure, having documentation on you to say why you're carrying a knife would probably help, the fact is the police aren't going to sling you in jail if you've got a variety of knives in a case because you're a chef or butcher travelling home.

The home office (that's the equiv of Secretary of State in the US I believe, responsible for domestic policy) has never once seriously entertained the prospect of banning knives based on a 'scale" of pointyness. It's accepted that people have proposed it, and in the years since that articles was published, it's not done anything, mainly because its a silly idea.

What is has done is forbid the sale of knives to under 18s (reasonable), the forbid the concealment of blades that have the potential to be used for nefarious intent (for example, a kid carrying a flick knife under a hoody vis a Sikh carrying a ceremonial Kirpan), which again, is reasonable. Again, a chef leaving her restaurant with her blades in a case will not land her in jail, neither will a butcher carrying his cleaver outside Whilst he has a cigarette (if that were acceptable...).

EDIT: please accept my apologies on the typos, I'm typing off my iPad and I can't be bothered to go through it and change it, sorry! :(

EDIT II: sorry, just thought I'd add, nothing of the sort has been proposed by the scientific community. The observations of knife crime in one particular hospital led researchers at West Sussex to propose a fix relative to the context of their particular study. I haven't read the study because I can't find it on PubMed or any other scholar database, but I'm willing to bet 100% that the ideas contained where not for sweeping legislation, rather for a re-think or possible debate on knife crime policy (which occurred after the article was written, incidentally, with the change in age restrictions etc).
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 16, 2013, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"If you ever come to the UK you need to go for a night out in Burnley...I can't really explain it, you'll understand if you do it, lol.
Dangerous, or "Big Brother"?

I do kind of understand it.  Since you guys outlawed guns, there is a TON of knife-violence.  The difference I see is that parliament is blaming the tool, rather than the criminal.  Criminals don't care about the law, so they'll still do what they want, and they've got a criminal mind, so even completely eradicating the tool will merely lead to different tools being used.  People were committing murder with rocks long before knives were invented, and they were committing murder with knives long before guns were invented.  Banning the tool doesn't stop anything.

It does make me wonder though, how do unarmed police enforce all this?

Just the people there, really.

As to the police: quite easily, really. CS spray, normal police tactics of overwhelming aggression with numbers, and so on.

Also, not all our police are unarmed. Some have tazers, some have guns (specialised units generally), all have Cs spray and batons etc. however im not an expert on police tactics here but we've grown up with a police force that has always been unarmed, for over 150 years. It's just a given, and there's never been a need nor a desire from UK society to arm officers en masse.

The UK police ethos is attempting to engage with people and not create an 'us vs them' approach. Of course, it fails in some cases, but mostly it seems to work.

I think the idea that there are lots of knife crimes here is a bit over exaggerated sometimes too. There isn't a knife crime epidemic, it just hits the news becuase it's more news worthy, and then journalists will pick up on it and then any other crime will be viewed as a continuation.

I'm firm in my belief that greater arms isn't a deterrent. It didn't work in Northern Ireland (we sent the army in to stem the troubles and it exacerbated them), and if there was ever a massive hike in crime here, I don't think it'd be the solution. It works here, but I'm not sure it'd work there I'm the states. Everyone has a gun more or less, whereas here hardly anyone has (I only saw my first gun a few weeks ago, to put it into perspective, and I'm 26).
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: mykcob4 on February 16, 2013, 12:24:38 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.
The military .223 is NOT a hunting round and actually does more damage than the larger caliber traditional hunting rounds. The fact is that the military .223 is all about ENERGY not the size of the projectile. Justifying a military assualt rifle for "hunting" (which no one actually does anymore) is a non starter.
The invention of the .223 round was made to save weight, to create a round that has emensly more energy allowing it to penetrate body armor, to kill effeciently and at distance, and to deliver as many rounds as possible. The key to the round is the energy not the size. Thus the round is destructive and wholly unsuitable for hunting. The best round for distance for hunting is a 30-06 delivered by a bolt action single shot long rifle. Such a rifle can be aimed at a vital area and deliver an instant killing blow. If you need an assualt weapon to "hunt" then you shouldn't hunt. Not that you or anyone actually "hunts."
If you are so sad that you need an assualt rifle to kill a semi-tamed unarmed defenseless docile animal, then you should save the money that you would spend on said rifle and spend it on the penis enlargement that you want in the first place. Better yet you should spend the money on therapy to cure your need to compensate!
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"It's a poor parent who doesn't recognize its own child.
And an even poorer judge of character who can't tell the difference between a parent and a bale of straw.  Keep batting at it.  The assertions you claim only exist in your own mind.

QuoteThe ability to spray 100 bullets all over creation without the ability to aim isn't an increase in efficiency.  The ability to kill your prey at 500 yards with a single shot is.  And you can't do that with an assault rifle.
Both are an increase in efficiency, one example is an increase in the efficiency of the loading mechanism, the other an increase in accuracy.  Which one is more important for my purpose is and should be MY decision to make.  if you disagree, feed your own family in whatever manner you choose.

QuoteOh, you mean your totally dishonest assertion that "ban all assault rifles" means "ban all firearms"?
Watch the video.  Read what she and her friends keep asserting.  they openly claim this is step one toward their real goal.  I never said "ban assault rifles means ban all guns" (though the way this law is written it DOES ban MOST guns), I said it was the first step to the goal of banning them all.

QuoteWe've seen your kind here before, misrepresenting what you post in the hope that no one actually thinks about your silly assertions.  They didn't end well.  You won't either if you keep insisting on being an idiot.
Your strawman is none of my concern, but the misrepresentation is yours and yours alone.  Speaking of insistence on being an idiot, you should look in the mirror.  Or just read what I write instead of reading into it and adding your own garbage in hopes that I'll concede something I never said in the first place.

QuoteAs far as banning all assault rifles, the Constitution doesn't give you an unfettered right to own one, so that's a dog that won't hunt.
"...shall not be abridged."  Actually, it does indeed do EXACTLY that.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 01:04:01 PM
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Everyone has a gun more or less, whereas here hardly anyone has (I only saw my first gun a few weeks ago, to put it into perspective, and I'm 26).
Right.  And the number of illegal guns likely equals the number of legal ones, but there is no real way to differentiate between them, as so many guns are obtained illegally through legal channels due to a woefully inadequate background check system, and HIPAA (medical privacy) laws that prevent the FBI from actually verifying if a person is lying about their mental health on a gun application (the lie is a crime, making it an illegally obtained firearm).  The system needs to be fixed, but banning guns will only take them away from law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 01:07:41 PM
Quote from: "mykcob4"Justifying a military assualt rifle for "hunting" (which no one actually does anymore) is a non starter.
Pages and pages of pics on the internet of various animals procured with these weapons belie your claims.

QuoteIf you need an assualt weapon to "hunt" then you shouldn't hunt.
It's not for you to decide which tools I use to procure meat for my family.  I could just as easily say "if you need a bullet to hunt then you shouldn't hunt.  A bow should suffice."  The fact remains, you are doing for your family, and it's not my prerogative to abridge the method in which you feed your children.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 01:33:43 PM
Quote from: "mykcob4"The military .223 is NOT a hunting round and actually does more damage than the larger caliber traditional hunting rounds. The fact is that the military .223 is all about ENERGY not the size of the projectile. Justifying a military assualt rifle for "hunting" (which no one actually does anymore) is a non starter.
The invention of the .223 round was made to save weight, to create a round that has emensly more energy allowing it to penetrate body armor, to kill effeciently and at distance, and to deliver as many rounds as possible. The key to the round is the energy not the size. Thus the round is destructive and wholly unsuitable for hunting. The best round for distance for hunting is a 30-06 delivered by a bolt action single shot long rifle. Such a rifle can be aimed at a vital area and deliver an instant killing blow. If you need an assualt weapon to "hunt" then you shouldn't hunt. Not that you or anyone actually "hunts."
If you are so sad that you need an assualt rifle to kill a semi-tamed unarmed defenseless docile animal, then you should save the money that you would spend on said rifle and spend it on the penis enlargement that you want in the first place. Better yet you should spend the money on therapy to cure your need to compensate!
That's your opinion, but you have already demonstrated again and again while discussing this issue that your opinion often has little relation to facts and is pretty much purely an emotion response. The only thing that keeps the 5.56 NATO from being an excellent hunting round is bullet selection. Please note the addition of the word excellent because even with FMJ military rounds it is perfectly adequate for many types of hunting. Having said that there is nothing magical about the 5.56 x 45 NATO cartridge. All other things being equal it isn't any more effective than larger more powerful traditional hunting rounds.

The .223 Remington on the other hand is an excellent hunting cartridge. Both the 5.56 and the .223 Remington use the same .224 caliber bullet diameter. There is a very wide selection of bullets available in .224 caliber. They range from 40 grains to 90. They are suitable for hunting animals from small deer to prairie dogs.

The dimensional differences between the two cartridges are minor. The 5.56 develops higher chamber pressures than the .223 Remington. The chamber throat is slightly longer in the 5.56. The .223 Remington is often fired from guns chambered for the 5.56 NATO round. There is no risk in doing so. I do it all the time. There is an increased risk going the way.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using an AR type rifle firing 60 grain Nosler partitions loaded in either 5.56 x 45 NATO or .223 Remington brass to hunt whitetails in states that allow the use of .22 caliber rounds on that kind of game. Your opinion on its suitability and obsession with penis sizes has no bearing on the facts.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: The Dude on February 16, 2013, 01:35:22 PM
QuoteNRA's Enemies:

1. Intelligent people

Welp, that explains it.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 16, 2013, 02:22:56 PM
I notice that you are using the pejorative "nanny-state" a lot, buttfinger. Do you think this rhetoric impresses us? I, for one, am firmly convinced by many examples that the average person is as dumb as a sack of river-worn stones. In which case, nanny-stating is definitely exactly what is called for.

By your definition, the hard drug laws are examples of the nanny-state in action. While I do not know if you are in agreement with them, a lot of people who howl about the "nanny-state" over making tobacco harder to obtain in an effort to curb smoking are the very same people who are lock-step behind laws against hard drugs. The amount of nanny-state involvement is a matter of opinion, though linked to how intelligent people react to the scenarios that a nanny-state would protect them from.

Which brings me to my second point. Earlier you stated that, while arming oneself doesn't give the ability to overthrow the government, the 2nd amendment grants the right to try. Yeah, you might have that "right," but you'd be stupid to try, owing to the complete inability of even armed militia to practice combined arms against an army that can.

While you have the "right" to do this, you don't have the intelligence to deserve it. Seriously, how do you expect to fight a fully armed and organized military and not die like a dog? The only reason you would survive is because that military knows you're not as big a threat to them as you think you are.

So yeah, you have proven to me quite adequately that you are exactly the kind of person I would ban ownership of a gun from, as you are a more serious threat to yourself than you are to any modern military in the world.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: buttfinger on February 16, 2013, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I notice that you are using the pejorative "nanny-state" a lot, buttfinger.
It's not a pejorative, it's a descriptor.  It's is shorthand for "governmental system that is overly concerned with my personal welfare to the exclusion of freedom".  "Nanny-state" is much easier to type.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I use and easily-recognizable shorthand term.  Not sorry as in "apologetic", but rather I pity you for being so easily offended.  It must be hard on you going trough life being offended at something as simple as a single term.

QuoteBy your definition, the hard drug laws are examples of the nanny-state in action.
Correct.  Drug addicts are generally not people with criminal minds.  They are people with personal issues who are often self-medicating a problem that the state prefers to nanny over rather than proffer treatment.  Sometimes they are recreational users, but most often those people simply choose alcohol, which is also sometimes used as self-medication of a mental issue.

QuoteWhich brings me to my second point. Earlier you stated that, while arming oneself doesn't give the ability to overthrow the government, the 2nd amendment grants the right to try. Yeah, you might have that "right," but you'd be stupid to try, owing to the complete inability of even armed militia to practice combined arms against an army that can.

While you have the "right" to do this, you don't have the intelligence to deserve it. Seriously, how do you expect to fight a fully armed and organized military and not die like a dog? The only reason you would survive is because that military knows you're not as big a threat to them as you think you are.

So yeah, you have proven to me quite adequately that you are exactly the kind of person I would ban ownership of a gun from, as you are a more serious threat to yourself than you are to any modern military in the world.
Your lack of ability to distinguish between my statement that I have that right and a statement that I will is your failing, not mine.  Your assertion that I am going to try this demonstrates that this argument isn't a thoughtful one on your part, but rather an emotional one.  If you really think that the right granted by the 2nd amendment isn't one that should be granted to the populace, feel free to lobby for a change in the constitution.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 03:41:18 PM
Oh and  a fighter jet is just a vehicle like a roller skate is just a shoe.

And another thing to the gun nutters. You are so afraid of government. Please tell me anyone if government is out to get you then why would they allow anyone of any political party or class or religion to join? It would seem to me if our government was out to get you they would do what Hitler did and only allow people to join who toed the party line. Since a democrat or Libertarian or poor person or college grad gun owner or non gun owner can join, it kinda puts your conspiracy crap in the fucking trash can where it belongs.


Let me remind you, you did not join to fight for only what you vote for. You took an oath to protect the Constitution, which means WE vote, and sometimes YOU don't always get what you want. Our founders did not fight simply so one agenda or one party or one class could monopolize law. They fought so that WE could have a peaceful transfer of power. If you want to fight for a monochromatic state where only one sect of the population gets to decide for the rest of us NORTH KOREA would be a great military for you to join and fight for.

Again, this is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and gun makers scaring the shit out of the public so they can increase gun sales.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Colanth on February 16, 2013, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Colanth"It's a poor parent who doesn't recognize its own child.
And an even poorer judge of character who can't tell the difference between a parent and a bale of straw.
It was decided, long before your parents met, that "straw man" isn't the same as "doesn't agree with me", which is how you seem to be using it almost every time you type the phrase.

Quote
QuoteThe ability to spray 100 bullets all over creation without the ability to aim isn't an increase in efficiency.  The ability to kill your prey at 500 yards with a single shot is.  And you can't do that with an assault rifle.
Both are an increase in efficiency, one example is an increase in the efficiency of the loading mechanism, the other an increase in accuracy.
Since the purpose of a rifle isn't to maximize the firing rate (it's to deliver a bullet to a target, in case you weren't aware), the former isn't an increase in the efficiency of the rifle.  (It may be an increase in the efficiency of the designer of the mechanism, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.)

QuoteWhich one is more important for my purpose is and should be MY decision to make.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that you were trolling.  I'll ignore you now.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Colanth on February 16, 2013, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Colanth"
QuoteAs far as banning all assault rifles, the Constitution doesn't give you an unfettered right to own one, so that's a dog that won't hunt.
"...shall not be abridged."  Actually, it does indeed do EXACTLY that.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."  Actually it doesn't.  Owning your own weapon and using it at your discretion has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia.  The militia is called the National Guard today.  Want to bear arms?  Join it.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 16, 2013, 04:10:33 PM
Quote from: "Colanth""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."  Actually it doesn't.  Owning your own weapon and using it at your discretion has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia.  The militia is called the National Guard today.  Want to bear arms?  Join it.
Unfortunately Colanth, the highest court in the land disagrees with your assessment of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: SvZurich on February 16, 2013, 04:15:15 PM
Militia in the late 1700s referred to slave militias in Dixieland.  Militias formed to look for escaped slaves and ensure slaves were not armed.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 04:30:35 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"So the military has what 2 million , probably many who also shoot those M-16s, and  I bet if you talked to enough military and former military you'd find just because they share the same label "soldier" does not mean they think you need an assault riffle. But I bet you think everyone who owns a gun, or is or was in the military all if them would agree with you? You are absolutely sure of that? I would bet my life sharing a label wont mean all of them do. So if you wont listen to me go talk to soldiers who disagree with you, but I doubt you'd take the time to do that. You'll just assume there are none.

First off, I never calimed this soooo.... Secondly, i have spoken with many of the soldiers.  98% of those I have been able to speak to actually fully undertand and abide by their oath, the other two percent have either changed their mind on what they thought it meant or are only here to suckle off your teet and get money for college.  Those I know will never really care.

QuoteSecondly tanks and jets are NOT just vehicles, they ARE weapons of war. It is fucking asinine to claim they are not used for violence. Thats like saying a bayonette is just a knife and is not part of the riffle. Word games dont work.

Once again, an insertion amde only by you.  Love how you need to put words in my mouth in order to support your arguments.

QuoteThird, and exactly how do you think under a republican or democratic president, ETHER WAY, do you think you could overthrow the government with even just assault riffles? The reason I talk about tanks and jets IS BECAUSE you would need an equal amount or superior resources as compared to the government. You think you can overthrow the government with just riffles? I think you underestimate the amount of people who think they can, or even want to.

A third assertion that was never made.  Go ahead and keep spinning an argument you are only having with yourself.

QuoteEVEN GUN owners most, do not want to overthrow the government. There is just a small number of tea party gun nuts, MOST of the country, both left and right don't give one shit about overthrowing the government.

See above

QuoteThe second amendment was written back then, things have changed since then and weapons are much different than they are today. Thats like applying hitching posts laws to parking lots when no one has a horse.

The first amendment was also written back then, yet I can guess you agree that freedom of the press extends to video media as well even though they only had movable type in mind.  You don't get to pick and choose what applies and what doesn't.

QuoteNo one wants to take away all guns. The bottom line is that this is about gun makers and money. This is about gun makers not giving a shit about reducing gun death. This is about money and profits, not safety or gun rights.

You must not have watched the video I posted.  Until you actually do I will assert that your argument is nothing more than "I don't like guns and I will cry to mommy and daddy until they are gone"

QuoteAnd jets are not just vehicles, they ARE flying guns. Their missiles are like the bullets of a gun and the cockpit is the trigger and the pilot is the trigger puller. And tanks are moving guns, the shells are like the bullets of the gun and the driver is the trigger puller. They are both moving guns.   If they were just vehicles they wouldn't need weapons or have them.

You want this to be an assertion I made so badly you needed to post it twice?  Keep lying to yourself about what was said, maybe it will become true.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 04:33:48 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"Oh and  a fighter jet is just a vehicle like a roller skate is just a shoe.

And another thing to the gun nutters. You are so afraid of government. Please tell me anyone if government is out to get you then why would they allow anyone of any political party or class or religion to join? It would seem to me if our government was out to get you they would do what Hitler did and only allow people to join who toed the party line. Since a democrat or Libertarian or poor person or college grad gun owner or non gun owner can join, it kinda puts your conspiracy crap in the fucking trash can where it belongs.


Let me remind you, you did not join to fight for only what you vote for. You took an oath to protect the Constitution, which means WE vote, and sometimes YOU don't always get what you want. Our founders did not fight simply so one agenda or one party or one class could monopolize law. They fought so that WE could have a peaceful transfer of power. If you want to fight for a monochromatic state where only one sect of the population gets to decide for the rest of us NORTH KOREA would be a great military for you to join and fight for.

Again, this is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and gun makers scaring the shit out of the public so they can increase gun sales.


Needed to say a it a third time huh?  I think you can quietly leave and leave the debate that is actually going on here to people that are debating and quietly debate with yourself in the corner.  Now go.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 04:40:23 PM
Quote from: "Colanth""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."  Actually it doesn't.  Owning your own weapon and using it at your discretion has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia.  The militia is called the National Guard today.  Want to bear arms?  Join it.

Aha, more propoganda.  Yes they National Guard is the trained militia, but that does not change the definition of a militia.  The definition of milita is as follows


a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

As you can see, the first definition clearly defines the National Guard.  Yet you are totally neglecting the second part, the fact that we register for selctive service at 18 makes us part of the militia.  Notice it doesn't say anything about being trained in either definition.  So he is part a militia.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 05:20:20 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"Oh and  a fighter jet is just a vehicle like a roller skate is just a shoe.

And another thing to the gun nutters. You are so afraid of government. Please tell me anyone if government is out to get you then why would they allow anyone of any political party or class or religion to join? It would seem to me if our government was out to get you they would do what Hitler did and only allow people to join who toed the party line. Since a democrat or Libertarian or poor person or college grad gun owner or non gun owner can join, it kinda puts your conspiracy crap in the fucking trash can where it belongs.


Let me remind you, you did not join to fight for only what you vote for. You took an oath to protect the Constitution, which means WE vote, and sometimes YOU don't always get what you want. Our founders did not fight simply so one agenda or one party or one class could monopolize law. They fought so that WE could have a peaceful transfer of power. If you want to fight for a monochromatic state where only one sect of the population gets to decide for the rest of us NORTH KOREA would be a great military for you to join and fight for.

Again, this is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and gun makers scaring the shit out of the public so they can increase gun sales.


Needed to say a it a third time huh?  I think you can quietly leave and leave the debate that is actually going on here to people that are debating and quietly debate with yourself in the corner.  Now go.

First off, I started this thread. Secondly, I have been with this family of websites since 03. Third, since you don't own this board, I really don't give one fuck what you think I should or should not do.

You are not debating, you are whining because people who actually care about people dying are now standing up to the gun industry. You don't own us and we vote as well, so get over it.

So unless you are willing to try to take my vote away from me, then I would suggest you defend the system we have and accept that power shifts over time and WE get to decide what OUR laws are, not just you and not just what you want.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"
Quote from: "asshat"Secondly, i have spoken with many of the soldiers.  98% of those I have been able to speak to actually fully undertand and abide by their oath, the other two percent have either changed their mind on what they thought it meant or are only here to suckle off your teet and get money for college.  Those I know will never really care.

What's this miilitray love, please do tell?

This confuses me.

QuoteYou make it sound if you have spoken with 98% of US soldiers. I say 'make it sound', not that you said it. So don't jump on me with "I haven't said that!"

I read this and won't say that you are putting words in my mouth. If you read carefully what I said, I said "of those I have been able to speak to".

QuoteWell, what kind of a many is that I am curious now actually. Is it your many or mine? Brian's? The last soldier you spoke to? More than 50? More than 500?

more than 1 but less than the entire army.  I don't have exact number, but I would say it's within a few hundred.  It's not like I keep a tally of those I spoke with.

QuoteMilitaries have pretty strict codes everywhere around the world, what has convinced you that what these MANY soldiers say is 100% true? This is a job. They are getting paid. Oath or not

 I merely stated what has been said and what I have observed from those that I have close contact with and work with.  Seeing that I have worked with a couple hundred and can see that most of them are not unsrupulous I can assertain that they are pretty trustworthy.

QuoteLet's have an example about how reliable militray is on another subject. this is a job relies on codes as 'honour' and 'loyalty'. Yet there is an offically declared rape epidemic in the US army did you know that? I mean with all that codes, who would guess soldiers had a habit of raping their fellow soldiers and those women couldn't speak up because of those very codes, they are either treated as crazy or with something oureagous. Did you know what experts concluded on? That those soldiers are perfectly aware of what they are doing and continue doing it because they are getting away with it.

Do you need specific sources or can you google them, you won't read what I post anyway.

I don't know why i'm even responding to this part as it is a weak attempt to discredit people you don't know, but here goes.

 I would like to know whom has declared this rape epidimic you speak of, because it isn't the military.

"In 2011, there were 3,191 reports of sexual assaults ranging from wrongful touching to rape — but even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says he believes that because it is such an underreported crime, there were actually as many as 19,000 such attacks."

So 3,191 reported sexual assault are rape?  Nope.  Now before you zero in on what Paetta said, let me go ahead and have you look at the fact that it is his belief, not a fact.  THis number he quotes was pulled out of his ass.

Even the investigators state they have no clue how bad it actually is because unreported cases are exactly that, unreported.  They can't get a good number on it and can only guesstimate how bad the problem is.

I will also state that many countries have epidimics yet we don't discredit these people because of the assholes in their midst.  I'm sure you would scream and holler if I called every Muslim a terrorist based on the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two terrorist groups that just so happen to be Muslim.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:26:07 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Colanth""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."  Actually it doesn't.  Owning your own weapon and using it at your discretion has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia.  The militia is called the National Guard today.  Want to bear arms?  Join it.

Aha, more propoganda.  Yes they National Guard is the trained militia, but that does not change the definition of a militia.  The definition of milita is as follows.

QuoteYes they National Guard is the trained militia, but that does not change the definition of a militia.

You wrote this and accused the above post with making a propaganda?

Yes, you are of the belief that the National Guard are the only one's that are considered militia, propagnada created in order to undermine the second amendment.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:32:45 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"First off, I started this thread. Secondly, I have been with this family of websites since 03. Third, since you don't own this board, I really don't give one fuck what you think I should or should not do.

Good for you, do you want a cookie?

QuoteYou are not debating, you are whining because people who actually care about people dying are now standing up to the gun industry. You don't own us and we vote as well, so get over it.

No, I am most definitely debating, you are the one that is not debating and whining about shit. Putting words in people mouths and trying to steer the conversation so it fits in your box is not debating.  Also, I never said I don't care about people dying, once again nothing more than you staying off your psych meds.

QuoteSo unless you are willing to try to take my vote away from me, then I would suggest you defend the system we have and accept that power shifts over time and WE get to decide what OUR laws are, not just you and not just what you want.

Once again a bunch of cokamamy bullshit.  I am not trying to take your vote and you don't get to decide what your laws are.  That falls to the government.  Congress legislates and passes a bill, the President signs it into law, and the Supreme Court will debate on the constitutionality of the law.  I can easily override any law by simply looking at the constitution and past debate in the Supreme Court and have them take another look.  So yes, go sit in the corner and talk with your other personality.  I will say I find it flattering that it is based on some version me though.  : :)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:33:55 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"
Quote from: "asshat"I think you can quietly leave and leave the debate that is actually going on here to people that are debating and quietly debate with yourself in the corner. Now go.

I think you are pretty confused about your 'function' here. You are a just a poster and a newbie at that in this forum. It's not your place to order anyone what to do in a thread.

I think you are confused as to how much fuck I give.  Anyone that feels the need to carry on a debate with themselves has no business in discussion with other people.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 05:36:06 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"Oh and  a fighter jet is just a vehicle like a roller skate is just a shoe.

And another thing to the gun nutters. You are so afraid of government. Please tell me anyone if government is out to get you then why would they allow anyone of any political party or class or religion to join? It would seem to me if our government was out to get you they would do what Hitler did and only allow people to join who toed the party line. Since a democrat or Libertarian or poor person or college grad gun owner or non gun owner can join, it kinda puts your conspiracy crap in the fucking trash can where it belongs.


Let me remind you, you did not join to fight for only what you vote for. You took an oath to protect the Constitution, which means WE vote, and sometimes YOU don't always get what you want. Our founders did not fight simply so one agenda or one party or one class could monopolize law. They fought so that WE could have a peaceful transfer of power. If you want to fight for a monochromatic state where only one sect of the population gets to decide for the rest of us NORTH KOREA would be a great military for you to join and fight for.

Again, this is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and gun makers scaring the shit out of the public so they can increase gun sales.


Needed to say a it a third time huh?  I think you can quietly leave and leave the debate that is actually going on here to people that are debating and quietly debate with yourself in the corner.  Now go.

And just to piss you off again. I will say it a 4th time.

This is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and an industry that uses fear to string gullible people like you to increase their sales.

So go crawl back into your selfish narcissistic hole and stop spreading your childish fear.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"Oh and  a fighter jet is just a vehicle like a roller skate is just a shoe.

And another thing to the gun nutters. You are so afraid of government. Please tell me anyone if government is out to get you then why would they allow anyone of any political party or class or religion to join? It would seem to me if our government was out to get you they would do what Hitler did and only allow people to join who toed the party line. Since a democrat or Libertarian or poor person or college grad gun owner or non gun owner can join, it kinda puts your conspiracy crap in the fucking trash can where it belongs.


Let me remind you, you did not join to fight for only what you vote for. You took an oath to protect the Constitution, which means WE vote, and sometimes YOU don't always get what you want. Our founders did not fight simply so one agenda or one party or one class could monopolize law. They fought so that WE could have a peaceful transfer of power. If you want to fight for a monochromatic state where only one sect of the population gets to decide for the rest of us NORTH KOREA would be a great military for you to join and fight for.

Again, this is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and gun makers scaring the shit out of the public so they can increase gun sales.


Needed to say a it a third time huh?  I think you can quietly leave and leave the debate that is actually going on here to people that are debating and quietly debate with yourself in the corner.  Now go.

And just to piss you off again. I will say it a 4th time.

This is not about gun rights, this is about MONEY and an industry that uses fear to string gullible people like you to increase their sales.

So go crawl back into your selfish narcissistic hole and stop spreading your childish fear.

The only narcissistic, child fear spreading person is you my friend "oo mommy, it's scary looking, can I have some of your milk please?"
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:51:11 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"
Quote from: "asshat"I read this and won't say that you are putting words in my mouth. If you read carefully what I said, I said "of those I have been able to speak to".

Yeah, that would mean something if you were doing a research. I said you are making it sound as if.

Quotemore than 1 but less than the entire army.  I don't have exact number, but I would say it's within a few hundred.  It's not like I keep a tally of those I spoke with.

I merely stated what has been said and what I have observed from those that I have close contact with and work with.  Seeing that I have worked with a couple hundred and can see that most of them are not unsrupulous I can assertain that they are pretty trustworthy.

I don't know why i'm even responding to this part as it is a weak attempt to discredit people you don't know, but here goes.

Really? Like you promoting some people you don't know anything about but assertain that 'they are pretty trustworthy' by observation. :lol: What kind of an observation is that. Who are you? Sherlock Holmes? Dr. Cal Lightman? another TV shoe character developed from Holmes?

QuoteI would like to know whom has declared this rape epidimic you speak of, because it isn't the military.

"In 2011, there were 3,191 reports of sexual assaults ranging from wrongful touching to rape — but even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says he believes that because it is such an underreported crime, there were actually as many as 19,000 such attacks."

So 3,191 reported sexual assault are rape?  Nope.  Now before you zero in on what Paetta said, let me go ahead and have you look at the fact that it is his belief, not a fact.  THis number he quotes was pulled out of his ass.

Even the investigators state they have no clue how bad it actually is because unreported cases are exactly that, unreported.  They can't get a good number on it and can only guesstimate how bad the problem is.

Oh that's peachy. Instead of admitting that you don't know shit about the subject, how bad is the estimated situation, or the claim, you just jumped to defend countless of people you don't have a clue about, just because they are 'soldiers'. Add this to your disgusting general attitude and now I need to educate you on one of the most basic common problem of US army which you are an expert about.

QuoteI will also state that many countries have epidimics yet we don't discredit these people because of the assholes in their midst.I'm sure you would scream and holler if I called every Muslim a terrorist based on the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two terrorist groups that just so happen to be Muslim.

Ah, that's done all the time. Go check crimes commited by christians and look for the word christian in newsfeed reporting those crimes as oppsed to the other ones reproting about muslims. It's easy you'll spot the one about muslims bytitle without clicking.

We recently talked about this when a 20 year old woman who were tortured and burned a week ago, accused of being a witch. We couldn't find one article mentioining those poeple were christians.

But we have all the other newsfeeeds starting with 'Muslim....raped, tortured"...never fails. So cut the crap and stop whining.


You go ahead and keep sucking that cock of all your buddies here pal.  Maybe one day it'll pay off and you can feel good about yourself.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 05:57:37 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am guessing you know how to read. I am talking about you. See, you are still confused. If you don't give a fuck, stop posting. It's not your place to decide what should people do in a thread. Your position or how you feel is not important. Get it?


All I hear from you is "wah wah wah, I'm a liitle bitch.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 06:01:58 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am guessing you know how to read. I am talking about you. See, you are still confused. If you don't give a fuck, stop posting. It's not your place to decide what should people do in a thread. Your position or how you feel is not important. Get it?


All I hear from you is "wah wah wah, I'm a liitle bitch.

You are the bitch, MOMMY MOMMY bad gumment wants to take away my guns. Go suck on a nipple crybaby. Sucks for you because you sure as hell are not going to take away my vote and seems that the tide has changed.

You don't need an assault riffle or large clips dip shit. And I will and lots of people WILL get the job done.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am guessing you know how to read. I am talking about you. See, you are still confused. If you don't give a fuck, stop posting. It's not your place to decide what should people do in a thread. Your position or how you feel is not important. Get it?


All I hear from you is "wah wah wah, I'm a liitle bitch.

You are the bitch, MOMMY MOMMY bad gumment wants to take away my guns. Go suck on a nipple crybaby. Sucks for you because you sure as hell are not going to take away my vote and seems that the tide has changed.

You don't need an assault riffle or large clips dip shit. And I will and lots of people WILL get the job done.

HAHAHAHAHA, don't have a heart attack.  You will try to get the job done, but how do you plan on prying my guns out of my cold dead hands when the only thing you weild is a pacifier?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 06:06:22 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Brian do you really think he is after discussing about guns? :lol: Don't pay attention to him...

I was, until you guys went full on ratard.  I would say retard, but I don't want to insult them.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 16, 2013, 06:06:28 PM
A thread about the NRA, and perhaps gun control. There's no way this will resort to childish name calling...
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 06:20:22 PM
Quote from: "asshat"All I hear from you is "wah wah wah, I'm a liitle bitch.

You are the bitch, MOMMY MOMMY bad gumment wants to take away my guns. Go suck on a nipple crybaby. Sucks for you because you sure as hell are not going to take away my vote and seems that the tide has changed.

You don't need an assault riffle or large clips dip shit. And I will and lots of people WILL get the job done.

QuoteHAHAHAHAHA, don't have a heart attack.  You will try to get the job done, but how do you plan on prying my guns out of my cold dead hands when the only thing you weild is a pacifier?

Seems to me the only one here who wants to get violent is you.  I use the voting booth, only insecure bullies use violence. You, the gun makers and the NRA are the bullies. They use money and fear and you are their gullible bitch. And the rest of us will get the job done at the voting booth. Now like I said, you can grow the fuck up, or get left behind, either way it is OUR country, not just yours.


"From my cold dead hands" You dont have the fucking guts to face any family member of Newton, or Arorah, or Va Tec, or Gabbi Giffords or any family member of domestic violence or gang violence. The only crybaby here is you.

Do I have a right to vote or do I not? Seems like you don't want me to have a right to vote. So if you do manage overthrow the government, under your team's rule, would I have a second amendment right? Somehow I think not. Hypocrite.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"Seems to me the only one here who wants to get violent is you.  I use the voting booth, only insecure bullies use violence. You, the gun makers and the NRA are the bullies. They use money and fear and you are their gullible bitch. And the rest of us will get the job done at the voting booth. Now like I said, you can grow the fuck up, or get left behind, either way it is OUR country, not just yours.

See again, too stupid to realize whats being said around here.


Quote"From my cold dead hands" You dont have the fucking guts to face any family member of Newton, or Arorah, or Va Tec, or Gabbi Giffords or any family member of domestic violence or gang violence. The only crybaby here is you.

Want to place a wager on that skippy?  Say, $50?  NM, don't want to take your welfare money.

QuoteDo I have a right to vote or do I not? Seems like you don't want me to have a right to vote. So if you do manage overthrow the government, under your team's rule, would I have a second amendment right? Somehow I think not. Hypocrite.

Who ever said you didn't  You think that if you claim something long enough it become true.  Go to your voting booth, you ahve that right, but if you actually understood how the government worked than you would realize YOU AREN'T VOTING ON THIS.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 06:34:11 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"A thread about the NRA, and perhaps gun control. There's no way this will resort to childish name calling...

Who gives a fuck about name calling, I don't give one fuck what the gun nutters call me. Civility is being non violent in the face of blasphemy. See this is the difference between the nutters and civil society. I accept that people wont always like me. I also accept that I don't have the right to physically harm someone else just because they call me names.

That is what the nuts in the middle east do. That is what fascist states like Iran do. That is what the church did during the dark ages did.

Our gun nutter bitch here is threatening violence, not me "From my cold dead hands". All we want is a vote. Voting seems a lot better to me than violence.

He doesn't trust our system, I do. I've lived under republican rule and republican presidents and power has shifted both ways the entire history of this country. This is just  case of a crybaby crying because sometime he doesn't get what he wants.

F
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2013, 06:38:12 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"A thread about the NRA, and perhaps gun control. There's no way this will resort to childish name calling...

Who gives a fuck about name calling, I don't give one fuck what the gun nutters call me. Civility is being non violent in the face of blasphemy. See this is the difference between the nutters and civil society. I accept that people wont always like me. I also accept that I don't have the right to physically harm someone else just because they call me names.

That is what the nuts in the middle east do. That is what fascist states like Iran do. That is what the church did during the dark ages did.

Our gun nutter bitch here is threatening violence, not me "From my cold dead hands". All we want is a vote. Voting seems a lot better to me than violence.

He doesn't trust our system, I do. I've lived under republican rule and republican presidents and power has shifted both ways the entire history of this country. This is just  case of a crybaby crying because sometime he doesn't get what he wants.

F


Finally, you admit you are crying because I disagree with you.  That's the first step to recovery.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: hillbillyatheist on February 16, 2013, 06:41:09 PM
okay thats enough, asshat, I can tell both by your choice of username and your behavior here, that you don't belong on AF.

you're outta here.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 06:42:38 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"Seems to me the only one here who wants to get violent is you.  I use the voting booth, only insecure bullies use violence. You, the gun makers and the NRA are the bullies. They use money and fear and you are their gullible bitch. And the rest of us will get the job done at the voting booth. Now like I said, you can grow the fuck up, or get left behind, either way it is OUR country, not just yours.

See again, too stupid to realize whats being said around here.


Quote"From my cold dead hands" You dont have the fucking guts to face any family member of Newton, or Arorah, or Va Tec, or Gabbi Giffords or any family member of domestic violence or gang violence. The only crybaby here is you.

Want to place a wager on that skippy?  Say, $50?  NM, don't want to take your welfare money.

QuoteDo I have a right to vote or do I not? Seems like you don't want me to have a right to vote. So if you do manage overthrow the government, under your team's rule, would I have a second amendment right? Somehow I think not. Hypocrite.

Who ever said you didn't  You think that if you claim something long enough it become true.  Go to your voting booth, you ahve that right, but if you actually understood how the government worked than you would realize YOU AREN'T VOTING ON THIS.

You did "from my cold dead hands". If we vote and get an assault riffle ban, that is due to MY non violent voting. So you are saying that we cant vote if you are going to resort to violence if we win.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION FUCKWAD. You dont, otherwise you wouldn't be saying "From my cold dead hands".

"REGULATED' for one, you pretend to read it but you like to ignore it, regulations, like speed limits.

And on top of that we have tree separate branches of government and a Supreme Court, and none of those things have absolute power.

You are merely fixated on what you want and what you like, I really seriously doubt you truly give one fuck about the rights of people who don't agree with you otherwise you wouldn't be saying "from my cold dead hands".

You've been watching too many John Wayne Dirty Harry movies. You are not Mel Gibson and this is not a movie.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Brian do you really think he is after discussing about guns? :lol: Don't pay attention to him...

No do have to pay attention, this shit has been going on for far too long. I don't expect to get him to wise up. Hopefully he wont do something stupid and get himself arrested or killed trying to falsely play martyr. I don't want him dead at all. I just think he is nuts.

But if others seeing this lunatics words will motivate them to vote, putting him on display is exactly what we need. I think that nutbag who runs the NRA is doing a great job sinking the NRA. Maybe the NRA will fire his ass and actually get back to what it was when it first started. The original NRA was valuable, the one that exists now is just a corporate whore.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 07:12:09 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Brian do you really think he is after discussing about guns? :lol: Don't pay attention to him...

I was, until you guys went full on ratard.  I would say retard, but I don't want to insult them.

Is that a threat? Because this website does and will report threats.  Because you know he was referring to your lack of concern for our right right to vote. And you responded "I was, until" and that was referring to our right to vote. So now you are saying you are not concerned about our right to vote? So that really does mean you don't want us to vote, doesn't it?

See we vote. We don't want violence at all. You live in a John Wayne fantasy and think you crossed the Delaware with Washington. You think you are the only one with any rights to interpret the Constitution. You think that only your side should have power.

Don't be half assed about it, either you want us to have the right to vote, or you don't want us to have the right to vote. What I really think is going on is that you are ok with voting as long as you get what you want.

"From my cold dead hands" you said that, not me. You are implying veiled threats and you damned well know it. I'd suggest you stop implying or using veiled threats.

You want to say I am full of shit, or even call me a retard, fine. But threats of any kind will not be tolerated.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 07:23:34 PM
QuoteWant to place a wager on that skippy? Say, $50? NM, don't want to take your welfare money.

What welfare money? I'm not on welfare, but see unlike you I do care about the poor and don't mind my taxes going to help out others. And see idiots like you never spend any time with the people who are on welfare, the majority of them DONT want to be on it. But businesses keep cutting their hours, cutting their pay and cut jobs and what little jobs that are created cant and don't keep up with the cost of living.

Welfare is the tax cuts we pay for for GE and Exxon. Welfare is too big to fail where WE bailed out Wall Street, the Banks and car companies. So please, don't lecture me about welfare.

But I don't expect an idiot like you to understand that, because that would require you to remove the fingers from your ears and take Rush Limbaugh's cock out of your mouth.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Jmpty on February 16, 2013, 07:33:45 PM
I put both those guys on ignore about 10 posts in. Asshat and Buttfinger seem somehow right for their names.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 07:33:46 PM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"A thread about the NRA, and perhaps gun control. There's no way this will resort to childish name calling...

Who gives a fuck about name calling, I don't give one fuck what the gun nutters call me. Civility is being non violent in the face of blasphemy. See this is the difference between the nutters and civil society. I accept that people wont always like me. I also accept that I don't have the right to physically harm someone else just because they call me names.

That is what the nuts in the middle east do. That is what fascist states like Iran do. That is what the church did during the dark ages did.

Our gun nutter bitch here is threatening violence, not me "From my cold dead hands". All we want is a vote. Voting seems a lot better to me than violence.

He doesn't trust our system, I do. I've lived under republican rule and republican presidents and power has shifted both ways the entire history of this country. This is just  case of a crybaby crying because sometime he doesn't get what he wants.

F


Finally, you admit you are crying because I disagree with you.  That's the first step to recovery.

No I said you were crying. Project much?

I said I don't give one fuck what you call me. I've heard it all before. You are the one making veiled threats, not me. All I want is a vote.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 07:36:14 PM
Quote from: "Jmpty"I put both those guys on ignore about 10 posts in. Asshat and Buttfinger seem somehow right for their names.

No, they need to be put on display, people need see them to be motivated to not let the NRA or gun makers get another pass like they have been for far too long. The more nutty they look, the more people will get motivated to motivate congress and vote.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 16, 2013, 07:39:48 PM
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"okay thats enough, asshat, I can tell both by your choice of username and your behavior here, that you don't belong on AF.

you're outta here.

FUCK, damn it you took way my chew toy. But I do understand. I was fine with everything until "From my cold dead hands".

He's better off not being here anyway, he has a screw loose.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Aroura33 on February 16, 2013, 07:53:30 PM
Quote from: "Jmpty"I put both those guys on ignore about 10 posts in. Asshat and Buttfinger seem somehow right for their names.
Wow no kidding.  
I was only gone a few days.  I see the forums crashed but were recovered, and then our newest members are Beavis and Butthead!  Only not as funny!  :roll:  Maybe I should have made my break longer, lol.
Instead, I guess I'll just go ahead and expand my foe list, it is there for a reason.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 16, 2013, 08:52:06 PM
Now you see why I quit with the guy yesterday. Pointless bullshit.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Rejak on February 16, 2013, 11:32:46 PM
Perhaps the NRA stance on the ownership of weapons may have international implications
//http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/02/a-letter-from-kim-jong-un.html
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Jmpty on February 16, 2013, 11:49:58 PM
Quote from: "Rejak"Perhaps the NRA stance on the ownership of weapons may have international implications
//http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/02/a-letter-from-kim-jong-un.html

Brilliant!
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 01:00:54 AM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"A thread about the NRA, and perhaps gun control. There's no way this will resort to childish name calling...

hahahahah

Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"The home office (that's the equiv of Secretary of State in the US I believe, responsible for domestic policy)  

As an aside, this isn't the case.  The US does not have a cabinet-level secretariat, nor indeed an office at any level of government, responsible for general domestic policy.  The analagous responsibilities of the Home Secretary are split up between three or four chairs in the President's cabinet, here.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 17, 2013, 04:02:32 AM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"The home office (that's the equiv of Secretary of State in the US I believe, responsible for domestic policy)  

As an aside, this isn't the case.  The US does not have a cabinet-level secretariat, nor indeed an office at any level of government, responsible for general domestic policy.  The analagous responsibilities of the Home Secretary are split up between three or four chairs in the President's cabinet, here.

The more you know.
Title:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 01:02:36 PM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I notice that you are using the pejorative "nanny-state" a lot, buttfinger.
It's not a pejorative, it's a descriptor.  It's is shorthand for "governmental system that is overly concerned with my personal welfare to the exclusion of freedom".  "Nanny-state" is much easier to type.
As I suspected, that makes "nanny-state" a subjective term, which I am free to disagree with. And I disagree with your use of the term with respect to assault rifles. It is not a nanny-state to forbid you assault rifles, because I have yet to see an assault rifle be used in anything other than massacres in civilian hands.

Quote from: "buttfinger"I'm sorry if it offends you that I use and easily-recognizable shorthand term.  Not sorry as in "apologetic", but rather I pity you for being so easily offended.  It must be hard on you going trough life being offended at something as simple as a single term.
Who's offended? I was pointing out that your use of "nanny-state" is worthless rhetoric. That's the exact opposite of being offended.

Are you projecting?

Quote from: "buttfinger"
QuoteBy your definition, the hard drug laws are examples of the nanny-state in action.
Correct.  Drug addicts are generally not people with criminal minds.  They are people with personal issues who are often self-medicating a problem that the state prefers to nanny over rather than proffer treatment.  Sometimes they are recreational users, but most often those people simply choose alcohol, which is also sometimes used as self-medication of a mental issue.
Which wasn't the point of that argument, as I agreed that you may have disagreement with the drug laws. The point is that a lot of people who think that gun laws are "nanny-state" also think that drug laws are NOT "nanny-state". See how that works? Whether you call it "nanny-state" or "governmental system that is overly concerned with my personal welfare to the exclusion of freedom", it still involves a judgement call on what you consider an intervention that is "overly concerned" — again citing the numerous instances where people with freedom abuse that freedom to the detriment of everyone.

Quote from: "buttfinger"
QuoteWhich brings me to my second point. Earlier you stated that, while arming oneself doesn't give the ability to overthrow the government, the 2nd amendment grants the right to try. Yeah, you might have that "right," but you'd be stupid to try, owing to the complete inability of even armed militia to practice combined arms against an army that can.

While you have the "right" to do this, you don't have the intelligence to deserve it. Seriously, how do you expect to fight a fully armed and organized military and not die like a dog? The only reason you would survive is because that military knows you're not as big a threat to them as you think you are.

So yeah, you have proven to me quite adequately that you are exactly the kind of person I would ban ownership of a gun from, as you are a more serious threat to yourself than you are to any modern military in the world.
Your lack of ability to distinguish between my statement that I have that right and a statement that I will is your failing, not mine.
Oh, I understand the difference just fine. My argument is that the right you claim is stupid to have in the first place. No one is served by the second amendment today, not even you.

Quote from: "buttfinger"Your assertion that I am going to try this demonstrates that this argument isn't a thoughtful one on your part, but rather an emotional one.
What, just like yours? Don't you realize that this "I wanna have the right to try to take down my government, even if I cannot succeed and won't even try" is completely an emotional argument, based upon having a freedom that you will never exercise if the opportunity presented itself, because you know full well you would get your ass handed to you. You want to have the freedom because the mere prospect of its lack offends you.

Unlike the second amendment, I actually use the first amendment every day of my life just being here. That's a worthwhile freedom.

Quote from: "buttfinger"If you really think that the right granted by the 2nd amendment isn't one that should be granted to the populace, feel free to lobby for a change in the constitution.
If you're never going to exercise the "freedom" to fight and die against your own military with your piddly little pea-shooters, why have it in the first place? Freedom is just a word unless you're willing to use it, like you and I can and do with the first amendment.

I am actually for repeal of the second amendment in its current form, given its completely out-of-date assumptions that any militia could hold a candle to a proper military force, and the fact that its pretty much failed to earn its keep otherwise. Of course, you and I know that the 2nd isn't going away any time soon.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 01:16:43 PM
QuoteThe constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.

I'm not even going to pretend to have read the rest of the thread because I'm really tired of all the gun-stuff lately, but I just wanted to chime in stating that it sounds hilarious to say that we have a natural right to own unnatural devices that were specifically designed to take away the natural rights of others.

Even if I know what you mean by this, it just sounds really funny.
Title: Re:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteThe constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.

I'm not even going to pretend to have read the rest of the thread because I'm really tired of all the gun-stuff lately, but I just wanted to chime in stating that it sounds hilarious to say that we have a natural right to own unnatural devices that were specifically designed to take away the natural rights of others.

Even if I know what you mean by this, it just sounds really funny.

I think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

I understand that semi-automatic rifles aren't very useful for that task, in most instances, but they can be and have been successfully used in that context.

I agree that the gun debate is tiresome.  It's particularly so for me, because the extremists on both sides of the issue refuse to consider that there may well be a solution that can satisfy the demands of both camps, in the form of smart guns.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 01:31:58 PM
QuoteI think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

Well yes, and I assume that is exactly what he was talking about too, the right to self defense. It just sounds really silly when you call it "the natural right to own guns".
Title:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
@Thumpalumpacus: Is it? How are you going to make a gun that cannot be fired in principle when all the components are there? Such guns can be modified to remove the "smart" aspect, because somewhere along the line you're still going to be igniting a chemical charge with some sort of igniter/cap. If you have that component, the smart gun can be hacked.

I agree that a smart gun would be safer than the alternative, in that you'd still have to spend time hacking the gun to get it to fire for anyone but the proper owners and inside verboten places, but once hacked you're still fucked. I would accept smart guns above the alternative as a stopgap, I do not believe it to be a complete solution.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 01:51:01 PM
I don't think you'd ever get rid of guns entirely, but once you get a smart gun to the point where it's harder to hack the gun than it is to build your own entirely, you're pretty much at the best possible solution.

Anything beyond that point is going to have to deal with "how can you prevent people from building their own guns?" where the only reasonable answer is "you can't".
Title: Re:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteI think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

Well yes, and I assume that is exactly what he was talking about too, the right to self defense. It just sounds really silly when you call it "the natural right to own guns".

Yeah, it's a bit rich there.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"@Thumpalumpacus: Is it? How are you going to make a gun that cannot be fired in principle when all the components are there? Such guns can be modified to remove the "smart" aspect, because somewhere along the line you're still going to be igniting a chemical charge with some sort of igniter/cap. If you have that component, the smart gun can be hacked.

I agree that a smart gun would be safer than the alternative, in that you'd still have to spend time hacking the gun to get it to fire for anyone but the proper owners and inside verboten places, but once hacked you're still fucked. I would accept smart guns above the alternative as a stopgap, I do not believe it to be a complete solution.

Of course, nothing is a complete solution.  But making smart guns hack-resistant ought not be too hard.  I'm no technician, but I could imagine the trigger interlock being set to relock at the end of each firing cycle, with the sensor being re-polled each time the trigger feels pressure; in other words, locked is the default..  And I could also imagine setting the IC controller to require an authorization to make any modifications to the action -- and releasing an epoxy or other disabler onto the interlock as soon as any unvetted (by RFID or 'print) modification to the gun is attempted.

Imagine that a criminal steals the gun in the course of a burglary, and takes it back to his home.  He realizes it will need to be hacked.  He doesn't have the right fingerprint or RFID transmitter.  He gets his trusty #1 Phillips-head.  The IC controller sense torsion on one of the screws, checks the sensor for an authorization, sees no authorization, and releases an epoxy into the interlock to prevent its future operation.

Now, like I said, I'm no technician, but I don't think for a moment that that sort of stuff is far outside our capabilities; and because it addresses the physical mechanism itself, it seems to obviate your concerns, which are fair and must be addressed for the idea to work.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: wolf39us on February 17, 2013, 02:59:02 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteI think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

Well yes, and I assume that is exactly what he was talking about too, the right to self defense. It just sounds really silly when you call it "the natural right to own guns".

Yeah, it's a bit rich there.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"@Thumpalumpacus: Is it? How are you going to make a gun that cannot be fired in principle when all the components are there? Such guns can be modified to remove the "smart" aspect, because somewhere along the line you're still going to be igniting a chemical charge with some sort of igniter/cap. If you have that component, the smart gun can be hacked.

I agree that a smart gun would be safer than the alternative, in that you'd still have to spend time hacking the gun to get it to fire for anyone but the proper owners and inside verboten places, but once hacked you're still fucked. I would accept smart guns above the alternative as a stopgap, I do not believe it to be a complete solution.

Of course, nothing is a complete solution.  But making smart guns hack-resistant ought not be too hard.  I'm no technician, but I could imagine the trigger interlock being set to relock at the end of each firing cycle, with the sensor being re-polled each time the trigger feels pressure; in other words, locked is the default..  And I could also imagine setting the IC controller to require an authorization to make any modifications to the action -- and releasing an epoxy or other disabler onto the interlock as soon as any unvetted (by RFID or 'print) modification to the gun is attempted.

Imagine that a criminal steals the gun in the course of a burglary, and takes it back to his home.  He realizes it will need to be hacked.  He doesn't have the right fingerprint or RFID transmitter.  He gets his trusty #1 Phillips-head.  The IC controller sense torsion on one of the screws, checks the sensor for an authorization, sees no authorization, and releases an epoxy into the interlock to prevent its future operation.

Now, like I said, I'm no technician, but I don't think for a moment that that sort of stuff is far outside our capabilities; and because it addresses the physical mechanism itself, it seems to obviate your concerns, which are fair and must be addressed for the idea to work.

This could definitely be made into reality.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Of course, nothing is a complete solution.  But making smart guns hack-resistant ought not be too hard.  I'm no technician, but I could imagine the trigger interlock being set to relock at the end of each firing cycle, with the sensor being re-polled each time the trigger feels pressure; in other words, locked is the default.
Which you can defeat by removing the solenoid from the trigger interlock.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And I could also imagine setting the IC controller to require an authorization to make any modifications to the action -- and releasing an epoxy or other disabler onto the interlock as soon as any unvetted (by RFID or 'print) modification to the gun is attempted.
Short the power cell, thus rendering the ICs dead. Or fill the action chamber with water before tampering, thus diluting the epoxy.

Also, for the determined criminal who has his own gun, he already has authorization to tamper with his own weapon.

An interlock can really only defeat casual means to get around them. A determined individual can do so with enough effort, and most means of defeating interlocks are pretty simple and just need a bit of planning.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Imagine that a criminal steals the gun in the course of a burglary, and takes it back to his home.  He realizes it will need to be hacked.  He doesn't have the right fingerprint or RFID transmitter.  He gets his trusty #1 Phillips-head.  The IC controller sense torsion on one of the screws, checks the sensor for an authorization, sees no authorization, and releases an epoxy into the interlock to prevent its future operation.
The first thing a criminal is going to do is NOT going to be getting out his Phillips-head. Prior to hacking the gun, he's to go online and figure out the specific weaknesses in his particular model, and there are always weaknesses.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 03:13:47 PM
Which, I would think, brings me back to my point that the smart gun only has to be harder to hack than it is to build your own gun, which I think should be possible. Especially ones with an electronic charge.

If it's going to reduce the number of people with illegal access to weapons by 50%, it's already totally worth it. And you can probably do better than 50% if you secure it well.
Title: Re:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: "Plu"Which, I would think, brings me back to my point that the smart gun only has to be harder to hack than it is to build your own gun, which I think should be possible. Especially ones with an electronic charge.
If anything, an electronic charge is easier to circumvent if you got it on the bench, as it's basically a smart-igniter. All you need is a little electronic knowhow and build your own means to deliver the required electric pulse to the igniter.

Quote from: "Plu"If it's going to reduce the number of people with illegal access to weapons by 50%, it's already totally worth it. And you can probably do better than 50% if you secure it well.
Unfortunately, smart guns will probably make it so less guns are secured, because of overconfidence in the technology. "There's no need to secure this gun; after all, it cannot be fired accidentally." It's a queer bit of our psychology.

There's also the point that any interlock designed to catch a criminal is probably going to sooner or later catch many many more legitimate users who forget to do some vital thing and ruin their gun, which is going to make them pissed and not likely to buy a smart gun in the future.
Title:
Post by: SvZurich on February 17, 2013, 04:16:20 PM
Don't forget the possibility of jamming/igniting the "secure trigger" remotely.  Or if an EMP goes off.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 04:21:51 PM
QuoteIf anything, an electronic charge is easier to circumvent if you got it on the bench, as it's basically a smart-igniter. All you need is a little electronic knowhow and build your own means to deliver the required electric pulse to the igniter.

Assuming it's powered by an electric charge through a simple battery. I was more thinking something along the line of a micro-processor delivering a more complicated sequence of information. You're going to need one anyway. Might as well use it all the way through.

QuoteUnfortunately, smart guns will probably make it so less guns are secured, because of overconfidence in the technology. "There's no need to secure this gun; after all, it cannot be fired accidentally." It's a queer bit of our psychology.

I'm not sure how this would be a problem? It can't be fired accidentally, at least not by anyone except the authorised operator(s). Unless you mean someone stealing it, in which case I guess people would be idiots because even though someone might not be able to fire it easily, they can still just take it.

QuoteThere's also the point that any interlock designed to catch a criminal is probably going to sooner or later catch many many more legitimate users who forget to do some vital thing and ruin their gun, which is going to make them pissed and not likely to buy a smart gun in the future.

Yeah. One of the primary points of smart guns would be that they're a requirement, not an option. They're supposed to replace older type weapons over time.
Also, there's not supposed to be any vital steps you can forget. The ruination shouldn't trigger on anything except someone taking the weapon apart (in which case you should damn well know what you're doing) and when used improperly the weapon simply will not fire.

QuoteOr if an EMP goes off.

EMPs are defeated by a bit of steel wire.
Title: Re:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: "Plu"Assuming it's powered by an electric charge through a simple battery. I was more thinking something along the line of a micro-processor delivering a more complicated sequence of information. You're going to need one anyway. Might as well use it all the way through.
If you're getting around the security by hacking the gun, that's what you're going to need. And how complicated do you imagine the firing to be? Remember, the more complicated the sequence, the more prone it is to failure.

Quote from: "Plu"I'm not sure how this would be a problem? It can't be fired accidentally, at least not by anyone except the authorised operator(s). Unless you mean someone stealing it, in which case I guess people would be idiots because even though someone might not be able to fire it easily, they can still just take it.
That's exactly what I mean.

Quote from: "Plu"Yeah. One of the primary points of smart guns would be that they're a requirement, not an option. They're supposed to replace older type weapons over time.
Also, there's not supposed to be any vital steps you can forget. The ruination shouldn't trigger on anything except someone taking the weapon apart (in which case you should damn well know what you're doing) and when used improperly the weapon simply will not fire.
I thought taking a weapon apart is a regular part of gun maintenance. Even in an electronically fired gun, you're still going to have some mechanism to chamber the rounds and eject the spent casing, and you're still going to have to clean the gun of residue that will build up from the propellent and stray bits of metal from the barrel rifling shaving stuff off the bullet. That means many, many opportunities for the gun owner to forget to authorize the cleaning before disassembling the gun.

Oh, that reminds me of another set of people who could take apart a gun: gunsmiths. Again, guns will require maintenance because of the action and powder residue, and will occasionally need to be repaired or customized, which means that you'll have a whole class of people who will be able to open a gun without being their operator.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
QuoteIf you're getting around the security by hacking the gun, that's what you're going to need. And how complicated do you imagine the firing to be? Remember, the more complicated the sequence, the more prone it is to failure.

The sequence has to be completed by the processor, those are highly unlikely to fail. They're very good at repeating sequences.

QuoteThat's exactly what I mean.

I still don't see the problem? If you're an idiot, you deserve it. There's no way that the gun can accidentally trigger, and any object you leave lying around to be stolen is you being an idiot, not a problem with that object.

QuoteI thought taking a weapon apart is a regular part of gun maintenance.

Yeah, and if you can't follow basic steps when doing that maintenance, you shouldn't have a gun. I'd rather have someone forget to take basic steps and ruin his gun over someone forgetting basic steps and accidentally discharging the weapon, the way it happens with a regular gun if you're being a moron. At least you'll learn to RTFM without possibly accidentally shooting someone.
That's why guns come with instruction manuals. This one will just have "authorize disassembly by holding down button A until weapon beeps" as the first step.

Also, all of the "problems" you keep mentioning apply equally or worse to standard class weapons, and every other object in existance. Nothing can be perfectly safe, but it's hard to claim that a smart gun can't be made substantially safer to operate and harder to crack than a regular gun.

I mean; computers can be hacked, and we have entire classes of people whose job it is to try and hack things, but we don't just say "sod it, we'll just publish everyone's bank account information online where everyone can see". Nothing is ever perfectly safe, but I'm not really hearing any arguments against smart guns.

I mean; even "they'd be more expensive" would be a better argument than "but someone could still take it apart if they'd invest 100 times more effort than they'd have to for a regular gun".
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Which you can defeat by removing the solenoid from the trigger interlock.

Perhaps.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Also, for the determined criminal who has his own gun, he already has authorization to tamper with his own weapon.

Of course.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"An interlock can really only defeat casual means to get around them. A determined individual can do so with enough effort, and most means of defeating interlocks are pretty simple and just need a bit of planning.

Once again, correct, except I don't think defeating them has to be so easy as you think.

Here's another idea:  what if opening up the gun to disable the solenoid activated a "kill" file in the OS, so that no electrical impulse would be sent to the firing pin?

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The first thing a criminal is going to do is NOT going to be getting out his Phillips-head. Prior to hacking the gun, he's to go online and figure out the specific weaknesses in his particular model, and there are always weaknesses.

Well, that was just a little stab at levity, y'know?  A little creative flourish.  

The point is not to make a perfect system; such is obviously impossible.  The point is to make a system difficult enough to defeat that it isn't worth the effort.  Let's face it, gun-toting criminals -- the type who rob liquor stores and banks -- they're looking for the biggest, and easiest, return on a minimal investment.  

I'm not a big fan of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I figure that we're pretty capable technologically, and can make a system that's bitchy enough that it will eliminate most -- not all -- firearms violence in America.  I certainly think that with some R&D, a robust system can be put together.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: GodvReligion on February 17, 2013, 06:03:00 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The point is not to make a perfect system; such is obviously impossible.  The point is to make a system difficult enough to defeat that it isn't worth the effort.  Let's face it, gun-toting criminals -- the type who rob liquor stores and banks -- they're looking for the biggest, and easiest, return on a minimal investment.  

I'm not a big fan of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I figure that we're pretty capable technologically, and can make a system that's bitchy enough that it will eliminate most -- not all -- firearms violence in America.  I certainly think that with some R&D, a robust system can be put together.

Have you thought about a permalick feature like on some safes?  If anyone tampers with it it will peramntley lock the hammer and ruin the gun.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 06:03:04 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Oh, that reminds me of another set of people who could take apart a gun: gunsmiths. Again, guns will require maintenance because of the action and powder residue, and will occasionally need to be repaired or customized, which means that you'll have a whole class of people who will be able to open a gun without being their operator.

Gunsmiths are required to be licensed. (//http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/gunsmiths.html#license-activities)

Quote from: "GodvReligion"Have you thought about a permalick feature like on some safes?  If anyone tampers with it it will peramntley lock the hammer and ruin the gun.


This is exactly my point.

Like I said, I'm no technician, but I think something could be fashioned.   I think it should center on the firing pin or chamber.
Title: Re:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 06:04:10 PM
Quote from: "SvZurich"Don't forget the possibility of jamming/igniting the "secure trigger" remotely.  Or if an EMP goes off.

Dude, if they want my (hypothetical) gun so bad they cook off a nuke, they can have it.  :)
Title: Re:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteIf you're getting around the security by hacking the gun, that's what you're going to need. And how complicated do you imagine the firing to be? Remember, the more complicated the sequence, the more prone it is to failure.

The sequence has to be completed by the processor, those are highly unlikely to fail. They're very good at repeating sequences.
Again, how complicated do you imagining the firing to be? It takes only a spark to set a bullet flying down the barrel, after all. If you imagine a sequence of solenoid actions, that's going to drain a battery very quickly.

Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteThat's exactly what I mean.

I still don't see the problem? If you're an idiot, you deserve it. There's no way that the gun can accidentally trigger, and any object you leave lying around to be stolen is you being an idiot, not a problem with that object.
A very common idiocy, Plu. The probability that people are going to be leaving their guns out is going to increase, not decrease.

Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteI thought taking a weapon apart is a regular part of gun maintenance.

Yeah, and if you can't follow basic steps when doing that maintenance, you shouldn't have a gun. I'd rather have someone forget to take basic steps and ruin his gun over someone forgetting basic steps and accidentally discharging the weapon, the way it happens with a regular gun if you're being a moron. At least you'll learn to RTFM without possibly accidentally shooting someone.
That's why guns come with instruction manuals. This one will just have "authorize disassembly by holding down button A until weapon beeps" as the first step.
"You can be safe a hundred times, but you can only die once," as the saying goes. You are going to forget those basic steps from time to time, period. People injure themselves all the time on their machines, even with manuals in easy reach, and even when they've thought to do that, they can still forget to do even basic steps like "holding down button A until weapon beeps" — you can forget that it's A that you need to hold down, or that you have to wait until the weapon beeps before releasing button A and move to the next step.

To say that everyone will, first time every time, be able to disassemble their gun for the required maintenance and never have a single incident, or even just a few incidents, flies right in the face of actual experience, where people with jobs are boggled by their computers not booting up because they haven't plugged the damn thing in, even when they boot up the damn thing every day. The people who would ruin their gun because they "can't follow basic steps when doing that maintenance" would include everyone, because everyone is going to make that kind of mistake eventually, and as such you have accidentely made a very good argument against gun ownership in general, being that everyone is too stupid to use a gun and all.

Such smart guns would have to be well and truly idiot proof, but of course we all know what happens when something becomes "idiot proof."

(I suppose if the manufactures would replace such a ruined gun for nominal fee or for free, but I don't know how expensive that could get.)

Secondly, you assume that with the gun open, a smart gun is going to fail by borking instead of discharging. Even in an electronic system, I don't see how you can say this. A firing capacitor that retains its charge can cause a mishap.

Quote from: "Plu"Also, all of the "problems" you keep mentioning apply equally or worse to standard class weapons, and every other object in existance. Nothing can be perfectly safe, but it's hard to claim that a smart gun can't be made substantially safer to operate and harder to crack than a regular gun.

I mean; computers can be hacked, and we have entire classes of people whose job it is to try and hack things, but we don't just say "sod it, we'll just publish everyone's bank account information online where everyone can see". Nothing is ever perfectly safe, but I'm not really hearing any arguments against smart guns.

I mean; even "they'd be more expensive" would be a better argument than "but someone could still take it apart if they'd invest 100 times more effort than they'd have to for a regular gun".
You have no basis of saying that hacking a gun would be "100 times more effort." The principle use of smart guns is to prevent accidental firings (firings where the finger is not on the trigger) and prevent getting shot by your own gun if a criminal rips it out of your hand. That makes smart guns safer than the alternative.

But you can still accidently shoot yourself in the foot with a smart gun, and you can still shoot someone you didn't mean to shoot with a smart gun, either in the heat of the moment or through misidentifying them. Prevent crime or massacres? No. Most criminals and mainaics would use their own gun, either fairly bought and/or hacked. Or imported illegally, in which case all bets are off.

And yes, having a class of people who can open a gun without the usual security means or biometrics is a serious problem, because what happens [s:3t0vegib]if[/s:3t0vegib] when the secrets of the trade get out on the internet? Let's say that a gunsmith will be able to disable the security of a smart gun by feeding in a certain sequence of numbers through a cable. That number is going to be standard for every gun of that model (otherwise, it would defeat the purpose), which means if you get that sequence, then some inexpensive computer parts give you the ability to hack every smart gun of that model in the world, and hacked guns of this model will appear on the black market. They'll be a fair target for stealing and fencing. Once that number gets out, the security of every gun of that model is comprimised.

So, no. Smart guns are not a panacea. They will not solve all the problems of guns, though they probably will curtail gun accidents and make gun crime harder. There's still a hairless ape pulling the trigger.

And no, your computer analogy is a red herring. The consequences of a hacked smart gun are a bit more serious than that of a hacked computer. Of course, everything is relative — if you hack NORAD computers you can cause the death of every living being on the earth, but to first approximation, nobody is going to die from a hacked bank account. Besides, computers have earned their keep, but the whole argument with guns is that it's not so clear-cut with guns that they have earned theirs. It's like the choice between low tar and unfiltered cigarettes: if your going to be stuck smoking a cig, then low tar is the way to go, but that doesn't mean smoking either is a good idea.

And yes, smart guns will be more expensive, but I thought that went without saying.
Title:
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2013, 06:23:32 PM
I'm having trouble understanding what your problem is. You seem to be comparing smart weapons to a hypothetical utopia where guns do not exist, and are basing your arguments on that? That seems rather pointless when the idea is to compare them to the current situation, where all of your arguments apply just as well or worse for the current situation.

QuoteYou have no basis of saying that hacking a gun would be "100 times more effort."

It is by default. It literally takes 0 effort to hack a regular gun. 100 times is even an understatement. But seems besides the point.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Gunsmiths are required to be licensed. (//http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/gunsmiths.html#license-activities)
Disabling a gun's security only requires the KNOWLEDGE of a gunsmith, not the LICENSE of a gunsmith. And not even the complete knowledge of a gunsmith, just a subset of it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Like I said, I'm no technician, but I think something could be fashioned.   I think it should center on the firing pin or chamber.
The choices for permalicks in a gun are limited, owing to the fact that it has to fit into a portable, rugged, aimable package. The devil is in the details. While it's fine to hold hope that some technical breakthrough will be able to solve some problem, it's still technology, which will have imperfections, compromises and failure modes. Technology has to earn its keep, and there's no guarantee that smart guns will do so.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"An interlock can really only defeat casual means to get around them. A determined individual can do so with enough effort, and most means of defeating interlocks are pretty simple and just need a bit of planning.

Once again, correct, except I don't think defeating them has to be so easy as you think.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to defeat most "professional" commercial security. Especially if it's commercial, as they'll be standardized and as such all have the same vulnerabilities. I do not hold much hope that a smart gun's security will be as secure as claimed, given the very poor track record commercial security has been traditionally.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Here's another idea:  what if opening up the gun to disable the solenoid activated a "kill" file in the OS, so that no electrical impulse would be sent to the firing pin?
The electrical impulse can be delivered by a dumb circuit just as easily as by the factory issue IC OS. It is also rare that an electronic device cannot be restored to factory settings by some means, and once that happens, the gun is the criminal's as if they bought it themselves.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The first thing a criminal is going to do is NOT going to be getting out his Phillips-head. Prior to hacking the gun, he's to go online and figure out the specific weaknesses in his particular model, and there are always weaknesses.

Well, that was just a little stab at levity, y'know?  A little creative flourish.

The point is not to make a perfect system; such is obviously impossible.  The point is to make a system difficult enough to defeat that it isn't worth the effort.  Let's face it, gun-toting criminals -- the type who rob liquor stores and banks -- they're looking for the biggest, and easiest, return on a minimal investment.
And a gun is such a huge advantage in that regard that they'll likely own one outright or go get one through hacking one themselves, through the black market of hacked smart guns, or foreign non-smart guns.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not a big fan of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I figure that we're pretty capable technologically, and can make a system that's bitchy enough that it will eliminate most -- not all -- firearms violence in America.  I certainly think that with some R&D, a robust system can be put together.
A commercial smart gun is going to be a compromise between the security you desire and the user friendliness that the typical owner expects. These are conflicting goals. To be worth while, a smart gun has to be easy to use and maintain as a regular, non-smart gun, or gun owners are going to be up in arms, if you'll forgive the phrase. The gun has to be able to perform its security checks as fast as a typical user can whip it out and pull the trigger, as easy to maintain as a regular gun —including not bork out because you miss a step in opening the gun— and not eat its battery so fast that you don't find yourself with a dead battery when you need it most.

For the purpose of making killing people dead easy, dumb guns are the pinacle of elegance. They're about as simple as you can get for their intended task. A smart gun adds interlocks and complications that will make it more expensive than the corresponding regular gun. A dumb gun —once unloaded— is something you can just take apart and clean; a smart gun would have at least one additional step that you skip at your financial (and perhaps bodily) peril. Even if a smart gun can be made extremely user-friendly, that will come at the cost of its security which will make it easier to hack, and the knowledge of how to hack one of these guns will be common once they've been floating around a while. Where there is a desire for hacked guns and gun hacking services, there will be a market even if that market is black. To make them as both user-friendly as safe as you desire would probably make them so expensive as to be practically banned.

So, no. Smart guns will not make gun crime impossible, because criminals will find their way around the security. The principle good of smart guns is to prevent misfirings (rather than bad targets) and being killed with one's own gun.
Title: Re:
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 17, 2013, 06:52:28 PM
Quote from: "Plu"I'm having trouble understanding what your problem is. You seem to be comparing smart weapons to a hypothetical utopia where guns do not exist, and are basing your arguments on that?
No, I'm basing the argument against the position that smart guns will somehow make it difficult for your average criminal to use one. Yes, smart guns will easily defeat a casual criminal, but a determined criminal underground can easily flood the streets with hacked smart weapons indistinguishable from the dumb guns that the smart guns would replace. Because guns give you THAT much advantage.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: GodvReligion on February 17, 2013, 07:03:20 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
Quote from: "Plu"I'm having trouble understanding what your problem is. You seem to be comparing smart weapons to a hypothetical utopia where guns do not exist, and are basing your arguments on that?
No, I'm basing the argument against the position that smart guns will somehow make it difficult for your average criminal to use one. Yes, smart guns will easily defeat a casual criminal, but a determined criminal underground can easily flood the streets with hacked smart weapons indistinguishable from the dumb guns that the smart guns would replace. Because guns give you THAT much advantage.

You make a good point, smartguns would be like locking your door.  The casual criminal comes up and tries to find an easy path in, but leaves when he can't find one whereas serial burglar will break in and empty your home.  Makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 17, 2013, 07:23:31 PM
Legalities be damned.

The bottom line is that sane people don 't mind others owning guns. But to ignore the amount of gun death is BAT FUCKING SHIT INSANE!

The only reason we have this problem is because of MONEY, and an industry that does not give one fuck about who they sell to or the amount they sell.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: GodvReligion on February 17, 2013, 07:26:06 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"Legalities be damned.

The bottom line is that sane people don 't mind others owning guns. But to ignore the amount of gun death is BAT FUCKING SHIT INSANE!

The only reason we have this problem is because of MONEY, and an industry that does not give one fuck about who they sell to or the amount they sell.

No sir, the reason we have this issue is because people who are willing to do the things that started the gun debate this time are more bat shit crazy than people that feel the gun death's mean nothing.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 17, 2013, 07:32:26 PM
What the fuck?

I want LESS gun death, not more.

Please tell me what your solution is.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: GodvReligion on February 17, 2013, 07:40:30 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"What the fuck?

I want LESS gun death, not more.

Please tell me what your solution is.

Where did you get that I want more gun death?  I don't think it's a money issue. i do think that the sales need to be more regulated and that anyone with serious mental disorders or violent tendencies don't need to be holding guns.  The issue I have with any ban is that it failed the first time.  If it had worked and we had this issue now, then I would be all for banning them.  There must be some sort of middle ground that we can all agree to here.  I'll have to think about it some more and see what's up.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 17, 2013, 08:51:17 PM
Quote from: "GodvReligion"
Quote from: "Brian37"What the fuck?

I want LESS gun death, not more.

Please tell me what your solution is.

Where did you get that I want more gun death?  I don't think it's a money issue. i do think that the sales need to be more regulated and that anyone with serious mental disorders or violent tendencies don't need to be holding guns.  The issue I have with any ban is that it failed the first time.  If it had worked and we had this issue now, then I would be all for banning them.  There must be some sort of middle ground that we can all agree to here.  I'll have to think about it some more and see what's up.

I wasn't implying you want more gun death.

But it IS a money issue.

No matter what business you own, your objective is to make money and expand your market. Gun makers are no different. They are not about to vote for a stable society. More crime more fear, more fear more gun sales. They have the money to pump into the NRA to scare the shit out of the public.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 10:34:20 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Disabling a gun's security only requires the KNOWLEDGE of a gunsmith, not the LICENSE of a gunsmith. And not even the complete knowledge of a gunsmith, just a subset of it.

Your objection was that standard gun care involves turning guns over to gunsmiths, who must be licensed if they are operating a business.  

Additionally, without knowing what the security system is, it may well be that it can be limited (digitally) to licensed gunsmiths.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The choices for permalicks in a gun are limited, owing to the fact that it has to fit into a portable, rugged, aimable package. The devil is in the details. While it's fine to hold hope that some technical breakthrough will be able to solve some problem, it's still technology, which will have imperfections, compromises and failure modes. Technology has to earn its keep, and there's no guarantee that smart guns will do so.

Of course.  This is exactly why I'm arguing for research and development to bring this sort of thing to a usable state.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You'd be surprised how easy it is to defeat most "professional" commercial security. Especially if it's commercial, as they'll be standardized and as such all have the same vulnerabilities. I do not hold much hope that a smart gun's security will be as secure as claimed, given the very poor track record commercial security has been traditionally.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The electrical impulse can be delivered by a dumb circuit just as easily as by the factory issue IC OS.

Not if the signal contains information.

 
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"It is also rare that an electronic device cannot be restored to factory settings by some means, and once that happens, the gun is the criminal's as if they bought it themselves.

Can that not be designed into the system?  Is that an technical  impossibility?  

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"And a gun is such a huge advantage in that regard that they'll likely own one outright or go get one through hacking one themselves, through the black market of hacked smart guns, or foreign non-smart guns.

So, if criminals are so desperate to get guns, do you think they'll be deterred by another law?  I don't.  Fact is, if someone has already decided to break the laws against robbery, rape, or murder, I don't think they'll be put off by a law forbidding the possession of a weapon.  Recent recidivism stats don't parse out how many recidivists went back in for a FiP charge, but in 1998 about one in three went back to prison for FiP[/urll]  (Forgive the lack of formatting, it's a gov't archive and not a current page).  Clearly, even after having done hard time, felons were not too worried about getting a gun.  Furthermore, according to the same report, about 70% of those guns were sourced outside licensed dealers -- either family members, or street dealers.

So, the answer of passing a law outlawing this or that type of gun will have the least impact on the demographic we most want to affect.

That is why I think we have to seek technological answers.

 (//http)
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"A commercial smart gun is going to be a compromise between the security you desire and the user friendliness that the typical owner expects. These are conflicting goals. To be worth while, a smart gun has to be easy to use and maintain as a regular, non-smart gun, or gun owners are going to be up in arms, if you'll forgive the phrase. The gun has to be able to perform its security checks as fast as a typical user can whip it out and pull the trigger, as easy to maintain as a regular gun —including not bork out because you miss a step in opening the gun— and not eat its battery so fast that you don't find yourself with a dead battery when you need it most.

Of course, and that's another reason the research needs to get done.  As far as battery strength goes, why cannot some of the kinetic energy that is produced by the act of firing be harnessed and routed back into a rechargeable battery?

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"For the purpose of making killing people dead easy, dumb guns are the pinacle of elegance. They're about as simple as you can get for their intended task. A smart gun adds interlocks and complications that will make it more expensive than the corresponding regular gun. A dumb gun —once unloaded— is something you can just take apart and clean; a smart gun would have at least one additional step that you skip at your financial (and perhaps bodily) peril. Even if a smart gun can be made extremely user-friendly, that will come at the cost of its security which will make it easier to hack, and the knowledge of how to hack one of these guns will be common once they've been floating around a while. Where there is a desire for hacked guns and gun hacking services, there will be a market even if that market is black. To make them as both user-friendly as safe as you desire would probably make them so expensive as to be practically banned.

Again, I think research will put paid to your pessimism.  Moore's law made computers cheaper and far more effective  than anyone dared envision when the IC was invented.  In 1903 we made the first powered flight, achieving 12 seconds of flight at a speed of seven miles an hour for a distance of 120 feet.  Sixty-three years later, we sent three men 240,000 miles to the moon at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.

I do not mind the additional expenses imposed on gun owners for smart guns, myself.  I think society has a right to act for the safety of all its members while at the same time preserving the rights that are ensconced in our Constitution.  I understand that they aren't (and now it's my turn for the ghastly pun) a magic bullet that will solve firearms crime.  But they would certainly do much more than any more hypothetical laws, with the added benefit of doing no violence to the Constitution.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"So, no. Smart guns will not make gun crime impossible, because criminals will find their way around the security. The principle good of smart guns is to prevent misfirings (rather than bad targets) and being killed with one's own gun.

I never did argue that they would render firearms crime "impossible".  Please don't impute arguments to me which I haven't made.

Thanks for the civil tone of discussion here, too.  I appreciate good, hard questions offered without drama.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 17, 2013, 10:41:17 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"Legalities be damned.

The bottom line is that sane people don 't mind others owning guns. But to ignore the amount of gun death is BAT FUCKING SHIT INSANE!

The only reason we have this problem is because of MONEY, and an industry that does not give one fuck about who they sell to or the amount they sell.

I absolutely agree.

I'm a member on a music forum which has an exceptionally large number of gun-owning conservative guys who'd probably drive you up the damned wall.  I've had this discussion with them too, and I find it startling that they find 9,000 gun murders per year acceptable, and reject even the principle of smart guns.  

But the fact of the matter is that they will either accept smart guns, or they will see the 2A eliminated entirely, eventually.  The tides of sentiment will naturally assure that mass murders stick in the memory while the good guy drawing on a mall-shooter gets buried in the mists of time.  

That alone assures that, unless action is taken to restrict unauthorized use, and taken to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, then what they fear most -- the general outlawing of firearms for all but a few private citizens -- will happen.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Brian37 on February 18, 2013, 06:16:28 AM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Brian37"Legalities be damned.

The bottom line is that sane people don 't mind others owning guns. But to ignore the amount of gun death is BAT FUCKING SHIT INSANE!

The only reason we have this problem is because of MONEY, and an industry that does not give one fuck about who they sell to or the amount they sell.

I absolutely agree.

I'm a member on a music forum which has an exceptionally large number of gun-owning conservative guys who'd probably drive you up the damned wall.  I've had this discussion with them too, and I find it startling that they find 9,000 gun murders per year acceptable, and reject even the principle of smart guns.  

But the fact of the matter is that they will either accept smart guns, or they will see the 2A eliminated entirely, eventually.  The tides of sentiment will naturally assure that mass murders stick in the memory while the good guy drawing on a mall-shooter gets buried in the mists of time.  

That alone assures that, unless action is taken to restrict unauthorized use, and taken to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, then what they fear most -- the general outlawing of firearms for all but a few private citizens -- will happen.

It is not just mentally disturbed and this isn't just about mass shootings. EVERY SINGLE DAY, on average 32 people die from everything, suicide, family murder, and gang violence, because of guns.

Most of this is caused by economic distress and an industry that does not care about the amount of guns in the hands of a climate of economically unstable society.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Johan on February 18, 2013, 07:35:17 AM
Quote from: "Brian37"So unless you are willing to try to take my vote away from me, then I would suggest you defend the system we have and accept that power shifts over time and WE get to decide what OUR laws are, not just you and not just what you want.
Oh what a nice world it would be if only that were true. I'm glad there are those who still believe its true though. I wish I could also believe, but I can't. Fool me once and all that.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Mathias"worse, have a feeling of exhilaration when hunting prey.
This is a physiological reaction to endorphins released as part of an evolutionary "strategy" to make on a more effective hunter.  It needs no justification: it just is.

I know a lot of people (including me) that don't have this physiological reaction. I feel like a coward pointing a gun to kill another being that I would not be harming or threatening. Not to mention that the technology involved in this weaponry has 0% of my participation in any part of the manufacture of the same.
 But my brain also produces moral "endorphins" like "empathy" and "altruism", essential "substances" in human evolution.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 11:32:48 AM
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Mathias"It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
I only kill for food.  your argument is a strawman.


I don't know what "strawman" (nothing in translators) means but I supose that is a falacy, right?

When the person kills for food, there's no arguments against it. But if you enjoy to kill or don't need this food to survive, my ignorance remains.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 11:39:38 AM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "Mathias"I think there's nothing more banal and involuted that shoot a living creature for fun, except aliens, zombies and matchbox. I Would be proud to be on this list

I think hunting is a part of our evolutionary experience in finding resources. It makes less sense now that technology and farming allow us to raise animals without hunting them. But if these hunters insist on it, just don't call it a sport, sports have level neutral rules and fields of play both sides have the opportunity to use. Hunting is not a sport, it is a trap, it is a trick. So if people  hunt, eat it, kill it quickly and as painlessly as possible and don't call it a sport.

But yea I agree, a grown man or women who thinks they are cleaver tricking an unarmed animal knowing the animal doesn't have the same ability, why would you get joy out of that? That would be like  a jock bully beating up a nerd to show off to the other jocks. It is just a childish form of narcissism.
YOu obviously have never hunted if that what you think it is.  Any true sportsman (hunter) will give the advantage to the animal by tracking it down.  Getting in a treestand is not being a true sportsman as you remove all the advatnages the animal has.


What do you call a hunter or sportsman, even giving advantages, I still call it cowardice. Especially because these benefits are part of a strategy that is taken into consideration by the hunter, so he does not suffer almost no threat, unless losing the prey. That is, I can compare the advantages given to the prey with David and Goliath, and we all know that no god interfere, right? ;)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 11:40:58 AM
Quote from: "Mathias"
Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Mathias"It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
I only kill for food.  your argument is a strawman.


I don't know what "strawman" (nothing in translators) means but I supose that is a falacy, right?

When the person kills for food, there's no arguments against it. But if you enjoy to kill or don't need this food to survive, my ignorance remains.

Straw man means to replace the argument with a similar argument that does not represent the original argument and refuting that without addressing the original point (not saying you did, I did read the entire thread here so I can't say you did or did not commit a strawman).

I wonder what your qualifications of "does not need this food to survive" is.  I can certainly go buy meat at the grocery store, but hunted meat is healthier for you and, although there is a pretty sizeable start up cost; costs less than buying meat at the store.  So I am unsure of your argument here.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 11:57:57 AM
Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "Mathias"buttfinger,

I agree with the second part of your arguments. Regarding the first, the animals do not need the man for kill old and/or sick animals. because there are several younger males, predators and nature disasters that do that. Instead using rifles and traps, cravenly appealing to the best instrument for adaptation in this planet, the intelligence.
Taking off the cultural part that perseveres in the habit of hunting, I still think an involuted act. Anyone "infected" by civilization should have aversion to hunt for fun.

You need to look into hunting laws.  People hunting for fun are usually poachers that allow the carcass to rot.  What is the point in that?  These are sick dillusional people that need to be shot before they up their prey.  Hunting is fun, but it should be done for hte meat.  I can go out and get one deer and one elk and feed my family for an entire year.  You however will spend thousands of dollars a year on burgers alone.


I know there are laws that allow hunting, but I don't have to agree with that, just as there are laws (at least here in Brazil) that prevent the taxation of religious institutions, for example. Clear that to kill an elk or deer and provide your family, saving money for other amenities, there is nothing wrong, but I doubt that is as economical as well. I wonder if these species are not endangered and there hunting for all those who want to hunt, without unbalancing the ecosystem of the region.
But as soon as I prefer to have a family and spend a lot of money to keep it, I'd rather pay for a good steak, instead killing, skinning, make mincemeat, etc.. an animal.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 12:18:21 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"Those who haven't hunted do not know what is involved. You are stalking an animal that can smell and hear you more than two hundred yards before you see it. It is knowledgeable of humans, knowing that smells like gun oil and human sweat spell danger. It is also naturally colored to blend in with surroundings and can move with great speed when alerted. Go and scout an area prior to the hunt. You will see plenty of game. Go back for the hunt, the game will all be gone.

And yet, it is not you who is being hunted. It's exactly this feelling in this game of cat and mouse that I don't understand, because the real goal is, from my point of view, coward.

QuoteOut west you are talking about distances of hundreds of yards, where you can be seen from one ridge to another, wearing necessary hunter orange and smelling like a carnivore because you are a meat eater. consider the fact that in Utah and Idaho, where I have hunted, hunting success runs typically from 10/25% assuming a good year with lots of game.

Consider the fact that they don't run more than a bullet and the sensation to kill a animal is for some people, something that is not good.

QuoteYou are also restricted on what you can hunt according to area and the dictates of the fish and game people. Areas that are low in animal numbers are restricted. Only areas that meet guidelines are open to hunting. In many cases you have to apply for a specific license by draws, paying extra for the opportunity.

It means nothing since I have to kill with a technology and intelligence that animals will never be prepared to compete. An addendum, fishing is boring, boring as hell!! :)

QuoteIt isn't that easy. You should also know that the money spent for licenses and draws also pays for the game management done during the year. As I said previously, hunters pay more and do more than any other group to fund the care of wildlife.

You Could donate or compete (involving awards), striking prey with paintballs to keep the wildlife.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 12:21:35 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"I know there are laws that allow hunting, but I don't have to agree with that, just as there are laws (at least here in Brazil) that prevent the taxation of religious institutions, for example. Clear that to kill an elk or deer and provide your family, saving money for other amenities, there is nothing wrong, but I doubt that is as economical as well.

Not 100% sure what you are trying to say here (sorry, language barrier) but it sounds as if you are asking if hunting is economical.  It is quite economical, hamburger meat here is averaged at around $1.15 per pound (2.25 Brazilian Real per pound).  I can get two animals butchered for around $80, factor in my ammo at around $12, the license for $30, and I have a years worth of meat for $122. This is way less than you would pay at the grocery store.

 
QuoteI wonder if these species are not endangered and there hunting for all those who want to hunt, without unbalancing the ecosystem of the region.

Not at all, in fact hunting is keeping the numers from exploding.  The Dept of Fish and Game are there to regualte it.  If a species is low or balanced than they remove hunting rights for that species.  If they are high then they limit the number you can get.

[qiote]But as soon as I prefer to have a family and spend a lot of money to keep it, I'd rather pay for a good steak, instead killing, skinning, make mincemeat, etc.. an animal.[/quote]

This is your choice and completely fine with me, however if you have seen how they treat animals in captivity vs how hunters treat them, you might change your mind.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Bibliofagus on February 18, 2013, 12:23:36 PM
Nukes don't kill people. People with nukes kill people.
So there's no reason at all whatsoever to ban nukes.

[spoil:2v8vwdul]Hmmm. That appears to mean we should ban people.
Fuck.[/spoil:2v8vwdul]
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Nukes don't kill people. People with nukes kill people.
So there's no reason at all whatsoever to ban nukes.


I think this is one of the most inconstrued sayings ever.  It is poorly written and one that people love to use.  Sure, bad unscrupulous people kill people, but the gun helps.  There definitely needs to be better regulation, but I don't see any reason to ban guns.  It seems to me that legislators see bad things happen and go to extremes in the name of safety.  There are many dangerous things out there have ligitimate purposes, yet when used in dangerous manners we don't go off half cocked crying for them to be banned.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 18, 2013, 12:39:57 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Disabling a gun's security only requires the KNOWLEDGE of a gunsmith, not the LICENSE of a gunsmith. And not even the complete knowledge of a gunsmith, just a subset of it.

Your objection was that standard gun care involves turning guns over to gunsmiths, who must be licensed if they are operating a business.  
No, it wasn't. It was a subargument about the knowledge about how to hack a smart gun would eventually disseminate. Part of that argument is realizing that gunsmiths would have backdoors into the smart guns for maintenance purposes, backdoors which will eventually be compromised.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Additionally, without knowing what the security system is, it may well be that it can be limited (digitally) to licensed gunsmiths.
Why do you assume that the security system and its details will remain hidden forever? Are you expecting all licensed gunsmiths to remain on the good side of the law forever, and be able to —without fail— keep that information 100% secure at all times, when that's never happened before?

You keep concentrating on the technological aspect of smart guns, when the weakest link is and will always be the hairless apes that operate them.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The electrical impulse can be delivered by a dumb circuit just as easily as by the factory issue IC OS.

Not if the signal contains information.
Well, I now believe you when you say that you don't have any technical expertese of the problem.

There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking, in that all levels and stages within the firing electronics are going to perform this verification. This is not the case. Between the chemical reaction that fires the bullet down the barrel and the electical signal to fire, there is an elementary electical element called a transducer. A transducer turns electrical energy into a physical action (or vice versa, but we'll get to that). It will not do any sort of decoding of the signal, because it is the energy of the electical pulse that is being transformed. A hot wire igniter would trigger the chemical reaction through Ohmic heating; a solenoid would trigger the reaction by turning into an electromagnet and slamming an iron core carrying a pin into the primer.

At no point in the transducer does any analysis take place of the signal. So if you can get rid of everything upstream of the tranducer and replace it with a dumb circuit that delivers the required electrical pulse to the transducer, then the gun will fire.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"It is also rare that an electronic device cannot be restored to factory settings by some means, and once that happens, the gun is the criminal's as if they bought it themselves.

Can that not be designed into the system?  Is that an technical  impossibility?
Yes, but that means that the gun will have to be sent back to the manufacturer for refurbishing if you make that mistake. Even if the manufacturer provides that service free of charge, that's still a few weeks you're not going to have your gun. It's an inconvenience that many gun owners aren't going to stand for.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"And a gun is such a huge advantage in that regard that they'll likely own one outright or go get one through hacking one themselves, through the black market of hacked smart guns, or foreign non-smart guns.

So, if criminals are so desperate to get guns, do you think they'll be deterred by another law?  I don't.  Fact is, if someone has already decided to break the laws against robbery, rape, or murder, I don't think they'll be put off by a law forbidding the possession of a weapon.  Recent recidivism stats don't parse out how many recidivists went back in for a FiP charge, but in 1998 about one in three went back to prison for FiP[/urll]  (Forgive the lack of formatting, it's a gov't archive and not a current page).  Clearly, even after having done hard time, felons were not too worried about getting a gun.  Furthermore, according to the same report, about 70% of those guns were sourced outside licensed dealers -- either family members, or street dealers. (//http)
No amount of want or determination will create a gun or bullets out of thin air. That's why you don't yet have your magic smart guns that fulfill all of your wants and needs — because such things can only come through research and then manufacturing of the weapons and ammunition.

We wouldn't have so many gun problems if we weren't flush with guns. We're flush with guns because so many people want them that it is profitable for arms manufacturers to sell them to civilians, and it is legal to sell them to civilians. An effective gun law is actually directed against the manufacturers, not individuals. If it is illegal for civilians to own assault rifles, then their manufacturers cannot net much profit for providing them to civilians, because they couldn't provide them legally, and at the same time exposes them to legal peril for distributing guns illegally. The result is those assault rifles will never be made in quantity to be used to commit all those crimes. Anti-gun laws keep guns out of circulation by keeping them from being made in the first place.

With smart guns, the guns still exist in approximately the same quantity as the dumb guns, they're just muzzled in a special way. So what happens when people find ways to take those muzzles off? Then you're back to the same problem with dumb guns.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"So, the answer of passing a law outlawing this or that type of gun will have the least impact on the demographic we most want to affect.

That is why I think we have to seek technological answers.
That's the other thing: seeking a technological answer for what is actually a human problem, and furthermore seeking a future, speculative technological answer to solve a present, exant human problem. You see the problem I'm having with this?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Of course, and that's another reason the research needs to get done.  As far as battery strength goes, why cannot some of the kinetic energy that is produced by the act of firing be harnessed and routed back into a rechargeable battery?
Because all batteries lose their charge over time, and rechargable batteries have a recharge limit on top of having a lesser energy density. I don't know of a single battery type that will take pulsed recharging well.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Again, I think research will put paid to your pessimism.  Moore's law made computers cheaper and far more effective  than anyone dared envision when the IC was invented.  In 1903 we made the first powered flight, achieving 12 seconds of flight at a speed of seven miles an hour for a distance of 120 feet.  Sixty-three years later, we sent three men 240,000 miles to the moon at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.
Moore's law is starting to bump up against hard physical limits as we speak. One of the more important ones is that capacitance and heat production is becoming an issue in ICs. Also, Moore's law does not apply outside of computers. We got those men to the moon by strapping them to a big-ass rocket over a tenth of a kilometer tall, because no smaller rocket could do the task.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I do not mind the additional expenses imposed on gun owners for smart guns, myself.  I think society has a right to act for the safety of all its members while at the same time preserving the rights that are ensconced in our Constitution.  I understand that they aren't (and now it's my turn for the ghastly pun) a magic bullet that will solve firearms crime.  But they would certainly do much more than any more hypothetical laws, with the added benefit of doing no violence to the Constitution.
The problem with your smart guns solution is that, so far, it's a bullet that's entirely mythical. You're putting forward ideas that even my meager knowledge of electrical engineering and electronics say "definitely impossible," such as your "coded signal to the transducer" malarky. You are putting forward technological solutions when all of them require humans to act, at various times, like perfect machines or complete drooling imbiciles when they quite manifestly are neither.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"So, no. Smart guns will not make gun crime impossible, because criminals will find their way around the security. The principle good of smart guns is to prevent misfirings (rather than bad targets) and being killed with one's own gun.

I never did argue that they would render firearms crime "impossible".  Please don't impute arguments to me which I haven't made.
Then you need to avoid such statements like the following:

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It's particularly so for me, because the extremists on both sides of the issue refuse to consider that there may well be a solution that can satisfy the demands of both camps, in the form of smart guns.
Last time I checked, the bringing of gun violence way down is part of the anti-gun camp, and that won't happen without a severe curtailment of gun violence.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Thanks for the civil tone of discussion here, too.  I appreciate good, hard questions offered without drama.
Yep.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: WitchSabrina on February 18, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"I would have supported the old NRA, the one that started out as a non profit educational gun safety organization. But it is nothing more than a corporate lobbyist for gun makers and uses fear and bigotry to gin up fear to keep gun sales up.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/a ... enemy-list (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/avlon-nra-enemy-list)

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scru ... ll-exists/ (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scrubs-anti-gun-enemy-list-from-website-but-a-version-still-exists/)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 63766.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/nra-anti-gun-list-missing_n_2663766.html)

Seems however now that the fucking cowards have been called out they have removed it.

Oh and Ben and Jerry's ice cream was on the list. This commie is going to go out and buy some Ben and Jerry's and support A PRIVATE BUSINESS, what the fuck am I thinking?

Other groups on the list, just about every Hollywood star. But the AMA, NURSES organizations, black organizations,  just about every Jewish group, and the YWCA. And several private sector businesses.

WHY DID YOU TAKE YOUR LIST DOWN NRA? FUCKING COWARDS!


Brian - I've sworn off NRA stuff for awhile due to just a complete lack of energy towards following something that's gonna turn around and shoot the shit outta me. (no not literally)  I'm just too tired of the gun/anti-gun talk.  I'm convinced the NRA is a machine, well-oiled, well funded machine.  When you find the head of the monster let me know.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"
Quote from: "Brian37"I would have supported the old NRA, the one that started out as a non profit educational gun safety organization. But it is nothing more than a corporate lobbyist for gun makers and uses fear and bigotry to gin up fear to keep gun sales up.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/a ... enemy-list (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/opinion/avlon-nra-enemy-list)

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scru ... ll-exists/ (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/nra-scrubs-anti-gun-enemy-list-from-website-but-a-version-still-exists/)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 63766.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/nra-anti-gun-list-missing_n_2663766.html)

Seems however now that the fucking cowards have been called out they have removed it.

Oh and Ben and Jerry's ice cream was on the list. This commie is going to go out and buy some Ben and Jerry's and support A PRIVATE BUSINESS, what the fuck am I thinking?

Other groups on the list, just about every Hollywood star. But the AMA, NURSES organizations, black organizations,  just about every Jewish group, and the YWCA. And several private sector businesses.

WHY DID YOU TAKE YOUR LIST DOWN NRA? FUCKING COWARDS!


Brian - I've sworn off NRA stuff for awhile due to just a complete lack of energy towards following something that's gonna turn around and shoot the shit outta me. (no not literally)  I'm just too tired of the gun/anti-gun talk.  I'm convinced the NRA is a machine, well-oiled, well funded machine.  When you find the head of the monster let me know.


This is very true.  The NRA was a good concept that turned very poor over the years.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"Straw man means to replace the argument with a similar argument that does not represent the original argument and refuting that without addressing the original point (not saying you did, I did read the entire thread here so I can't say you did or did not commit a strawman).

I wonder what your qualifications of "does not need this food to survive" is.  I can certainly go buy meat at the grocery store, but hunted meat is healthier for you and, although there is a pretty sizeable start up cost; costs less than buying meat at the store.  So I am unsure of your argument here.


Thanks for the explanation, and it's a falacy like I presumed.

I know  that's healthier, the same way that drinking water from an iceberg or sowing and harvesting fruits and vegetables, and I doubt that anyone who hunts like that. I'm talking about people who like to kill or do without using hunting for food. But I doubt it's as cheap as many here claim.
Title:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 18, 2013, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"It is not just mentally disturbed and this isn't just about mass shootings. EVERY SINGLE DAY, on average 32 people die from everything, suicide, family murder, and gang violence, because of guns.

Most of this is caused by economic distress and an industry that does not care about the amount of guns in the hands of a climate of economically unstable society.

I'd argue that treating the root causes of the violence would not only provide results at least as useful as passing another law banning this or that gun-type, it would also do the human beings involved a world of good.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"I know  that's healthier, the same way that drinking water from an iceberg or sowing and harvesting fruits and vegetables, and I doubt that anyone who hunts like that. I'm talking about people who like to kill or do without using hunting for food. But I doubt it's as cheap as many here claim.

Are you saying that people don't hunt for the food?  You are sorely mistaken if that is your stance.  There are few "trophy" hunters out there.  My mom grew up on hunted meat, I feed my kids on hunted meat.  As far as your "I doubt it's as cheap as people say" theory, I broke what I pay every year to hunt and feed my family for one year.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 02:09:28 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"Not 100% sure what you are trying to say here (sorry, language barrier) but it sounds as if you are asking if hunting is economical.  It is quite economical, hamburger meat here is averaged at around $1.15 per pound (2.25 Brazilian Real per pound).  I can get two animals butchered for around $80, factor in my ammo at around $12, the license for $30, and I have a years worth of meat for $122. This is way less than you would pay at the grocery store.


You are taking into consideration, purchase and maintenance of the weapon; license fees for hunting and possessing the same; transport costs and social cost (time spent which gets you out of the house)???
Here in my country is not so simple to go out with a gun and hunt due to distance and lack of places allowed animals to hunt worthwhile. Since fish is very easy, but as I said, I find it very annoying.

 
QuoteNot at all, in fact hunting is keeping the numers from exploding.  The Dept of Fish and Game are there to regualte it.  If a species is low or balanced than they remove hunting rights for that species.  If they are high then they limit the number you can get.


QuoteThis is your choice and completely fine with me, however if you have seen how they treat animals in captivity vs how hunters treat them, you might change your mind.

QuoteI see my opinion in this regard is even somewhat biased and wrong. But I still do not understand how a country as industrialized may have many wild animals as well!
For all I know the forest areas and the like are becoming smaller due to farmland, livestock and urbanization.

Even so, I would prefer that cattle would be created by the old fashioned way and leave the wildlife alone, because if there are many to hunt because there is an imbalance that causes this, showing that something is very wrong. I do not see hunting as something fun and would otherwise be spent on necessities.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 18, 2013, 02:20:38 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"No, it wasn't. It was a subargument about the knowledge about how to hack a smart gun would eventually disseminate. Part of that argument is realizing that gunsmiths would have backdoors into the smart guns for maintenance purposes, backdoors which will eventually be compromised.

Here's what you wrote:

QuoteOh, that reminds me of another set of people who could take apart a gun: gunsmiths.

Are you now adding to this quote the idea that gunsmiths will share the knowledge of their craft?  That doesn't seem very sensible to me.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Why do you assume that the security system and its details will remain hidden forever? Are you expecting all licensed gunsmiths to remain on the good side of the law forever, and be able to —without fail— keep that information 100% secure at all times, when that's never happened before?

I dont' assume that.  As I've written already, several times, I don't expect this to be a panacea.  It is not a magic bullet.  This is another example of you lading my points down with consequences I'm not saying will arise.  In this case, I am not assuming that it will remain hidden forever.

Just as an aside, I'm not big on absolutes like "never", "always", "forever", "everyone" -- things like that set off my bullshit detector, so I avoid those sorts of constructs.

The corollary to that is that when you're reading my posts, if you are summarizing it using one of those terms, you're almoost certainly reading it wrong, because I don't think or write in terms of absolutes.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You keep concentrating on the technological aspect of smart guns, when the weakest link is and will always be the hairless apes that operate them.

I'm focusing on the technological aspects because I think it's much easier to change gun design than human nature.  Don't you agree?

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Well, I now believe you when you say that you don't have any technical expertese of the problem.

There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking, in that all levels and stages within the firing electronics are going to perform this verification. This is not the case. Between the chemical reaction that fires the bullet down the barrel and the electical signal to fire, there is an elementary electical element called a transducer. A transducer turns electrical energy into a physical action (or vice versa, but we'll get to that). It will not do any sort of decoding of the signal, because it is the energy of the electical pulse that is being transformed. A hot wire igniter would trigger the chemical reaction through Ohmic heating; a solenoid would trigger the reaction by turning into an electromagnet and slamming an iron core carrying a pin into the primer.

At no point in the transducer does any analysis take place of the signal. So if you can get rid of everything upstream of the tranducer and replace it with a dumb circuit that delivers the required electrical pulse to the transducer, then the gun will fire.

I'll have to digest this further, because I'm indeed not a technician.



Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Yes, but that means that the gun will have to be sent back to the manufacturer for refurbishing if you make that mistake. Even if the manufacturer provides that service free of charge, that's still a few weeks you're not going to have your gun. It's an inconvenience that many gun owners aren't going to stand for.

I agree, they won't like it.  No rights are untrammelled, and if you're a responsible gun-owner, you won't need to worry about this.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"No amount of want or determination will create a gun or bullets out of thin air. That's why you don't yet have your magic smart guns that fulfill all of your wants and needs — because such things can only come through research and then manufacturing of the weapons and ammunition.

Homemade guns are a fact. (//http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/atf-seized-homemade-firearms-from-waxahatchie-man.html/)  [See also:  http://improguns.blogspot.com/ (http://improguns.blogspot.com/), http://mikecooperbooks.com/2011/10/homemade-guns/ (http://mikecooperbooks.com/2011/10/homemade-guns/)]

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"We wouldn't have so many gun problems if we weren't flush with guns. We're flush with guns because so many people want them that it is profitable for arms manufacturers to sell them to civilians, and it is legal to sell them to civilians. An effective gun law is actually directed against the manufacturers, not individuals. If it is illegal for civilians to own assault rifles, then their manufacturers cannot net much profit for providing them to civilians, because they couldn't provide them legally, and at the same time exposes them to legal peril for distributing guns illegally. The result is those assault rifles will never be made in quantity to be used to commit all those crimes. Anti-gun laws keep guns out of circulation by keeping them from being made in the first place.

Indeed.  Do you know the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic rifle?

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"With smart guns, the guns still exist in approximately the same quantity as the dumb guns, they're just muzzled in a special way. So what happens when people find ways to take those muzzles off? Then you're back to the same problem with dumb guns.

And yet another law that criminals won't abide will put us right back into the same problem too, don't you think?  Simply demanding that manufacturers stop building this or that class of weapons is not going to make the extant weapons vanish.  

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"That's the other thing: seeking a technological answer for what is actually a human problem, and furthermore seeking a future, speculative technological answer to solve a present, exant human problem. You see the problem I'm having with this?

I think changing human nature is much more difficult.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Because all batteries lose their charge over time, and rechargable batteries have a recharge limit on top of having a lesser energy density. I don't know of a single battery type that will take pulsed recharging well.

I agree that I've never heard of or read about pulsed recharge like that.  But even if it does come down to having the recharger located outside the gun, and plugging the gun in to recharge the battery, and every couple of years buying a new battery, that doesn't strike me as any real problem.  We already do that with cell phones.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Moore's law is starting to bump up against hard physical limits as we speak. One of the more important ones is that capacitance and heat production is becoming an issue in ICs. Also, Moore's law does not apply outside of computers. We got those men to the moon by strapping them to a big-ass rocket over a tenth of a kilometer tall, because no smaller rocket could do the task.

My point is that in both fields, the technological speed of advance took people very much by surprise.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The problem with your smart guns solution is that, so far, it's a bullet that's entirely mythical.

The word you're looking for is "hypothetical", not "mythical".  This is a point I've already acknowledged several times, so, yes.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You're putting forward ideas that even my meager knowledge of electrical engineering and electronics say "definitely impossible," such as your "coded signal to the transducer" malarky. You are putting forward technological solutions when all of them require humans to act, at various times, like perfect machines or complete drooling imbiciles when they quite manifestly are neither.

No, I'm not.  But your own notions about how to approach this issue are probably coloring your interpretations of my points, as noted above when I've had to point out several times that I'm not utilizing absolutist verbiage.  

That's not a slam, either, because I freely admit I am subject to my own biases as well.  I tend to think that this can be done, with research.  You clearly disagree, and that's cool.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Then you need to avoid such statements like the following:

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It's particularly so for me, because the extremists on both sides of the issue refuse to consider that there may well be a solution that can satisfy the demands of both camps, in the form of smart guns.
Last time I checked, the bringing of gun violence way down is part of the anti-gun camp, and that won't happen without a severe curtailment of gun violence.

I'm not sure how you got from that quote that I think this would make gun violence impossible.

Once again, this is absolutist verbiage that you're applying to my points that is not in them.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 02:21:24 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"
Quote from: "Alaric I"Not 100% sure what you are trying to say here (sorry, language barrier) but it sounds as if you are asking if hunting is economical.  It is quite economical, hamburger meat here is averaged at around $1.15 per pound (2.25 Brazilian Real per pound).  I can get two animals butchered for around $80, factor in my ammo at around $12, the license for $30, and I have a years worth of meat for $122. This is way less than you would pay at the grocery store.


You are taking into consideration, purchase and maintenance of the weapon; license fees for hunting and possessing the same; transport costs and social cost (time spent which gets you out of the house)???
Here in my country is not so simple to go out with a gun and hunt due to distance and lack of places allowed animals to hunt worthwhile. Since fish is very easy, but as I said, I find it very annoying.

Read the bolded portions again and then get back to me.

 

Quote from: "Mathias"I know a lot of people (including me) that don't have this physiological reaction. I feel like a coward pointing a gun to kill another being that I would not be harming or threatening.

 
Even so, I would prefer to be created by cattle the old fashioned way and leave the wildlife alone, because if there are many to hunt because there is an imbalance that causes this, showing that something is very wrong. I do not see hunting as something fun and would otherwise be spent on necessities.


You seem to have two stance here that contradict each other.  On one hand you don't want to harm an animal and are admit to being too cowardly to point a gun at one.  On the other you want to eat cattle, which are treated poorly, held in captivity, and then brutally slaughtered vs. a quick clean kill.  So are you you against harming them or aren't you?
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Bibliofagus on February 18, 2013, 02:31:59 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Nukes don't kill people. People with nukes kill people.
So there's no reason at all whatsoever to ban nukes.


I think this is one of the most inconstrued sayings ever.  

Yes! I put some effort into that. Thank you for noticing.

Quote from: "Alaric I"It is poorly written and one that people love to use.  

Yes! I put some effort into that. Thank you for noticing.

Quote from: "Alaric I"Sure, bad unscrupulous people kill people, but the [s:17wru6ng]gun[/s:17wru6ng] nuke helps.

Fify and... Erm... Confused over here. Maybe you've misinterpreted what I said?

Quote from: "Alaric I"There definitely needs to be better regulation, but I don't see any reason to ban [s:17wru6ng]guns[/s:17wru6ng] nukes.

Me neither. Nukes are okay. There is no reason at all these should not be sold to the likes of timothy mcveigh ;)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: stromboli on February 18, 2013, 02:32:36 PM
Like I said many pages back-
Hunting serves the purpose of game conservation. Managed herds, where a certain amount of hunting permits per unit are allowed, keeps the herds at optimum numbers to avoid overgrazing. Also keeps animals from needing to come down into human territory, which lowers the number of car/deer related incidents.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteIn 2000, of the 6.1 million lightweight motor vehicle collisions reported in the US, 247,000 crashes involved deer-vehicle collisions.[1] Deer-vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year.[2] State and federal governments, insurance companies, and drivers spend an addition $3 billion in an effort to reduce and manage the increasing number of deer-vehicle collisions.[3] The term "deer-vehicle collision" is commonly annotated throughout safety agencies as DVC.
Annual hunts are one of the best ways to control this. They also PAY FOR THEMSELVES, providing income that supports animal control and game management. That dude in the hunter orange is SAVING YOU TAXPAYER DOLLARS, WHILE HELPING TO CONTROL OVERPOPULATION OF ANIMALS, get it?

Meat hunters outnumber trophy hunters by a wide margin. Meat hunting is as economical as you make it. I fed my family with deer meat, which is much healthier than beef, btw. Figure the cost of a rifle over length of ownership (many decades) initial purchase of gear, only needing to be bought once and consumables (mostly gas) Over time, the cost of hunting ends up being about the same as super market costs for less quality meat.

Like I said, Ducks Unlimited is the NUMBER ONE SOURCE of care for waterfowl flyways and reserves. They fund it, and they spend countless hours physically working on it. We have an excellent population of waterfowl and fine waterfowl reserves thanks to them. The fucking problem is that the animal lovers get all boo hoo about, oh gees, shooting Bambi, until Bambi is starving and eating out of your back yard, and maybe killing your dog in self defense.

Knee jerk responses don't solve problems or generate the whole story. Learn the facts first.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"
Quote from: "Alaric I"Sure, bad unscrupulous people kill people, but the [s:302j4pup]gun[/s:302j4pup] nuke helps.

Fify and... Erm... Confused over here. Maybe you've misinterpreted what I said?

Apparently I did.  I thought you were trying to be sarcastic, what did you mean?

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"
Quote from: "Alaric I"There definitely needs to be better regulation, but I don't see any reason to ban [s:302j4pup]guns[/s:302j4pup] nukes.

Me neither. Nukes are okay. There is no reason at all these should not be sold to the likes of timothy mcveigh.

Oh, I get it now, you just want to mess with new guy. Cool story bro.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 18, 2013, 02:48:48 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"Read the bolded portions again and then get back to me.

Ok, It's healthier and cheapest, but even in a city like New York or Boston, for example?
 

Quote from: "Mathias"I know a lot of people (including me) that don't have this physiological reaction. I feel like a coward pointing a gun to kill another being that I would not be harming or threatening.

 
Even so, I would prefer to be created by cattle the old fashioned way and leave the wildlife alone, because if there are many to hunt because there is an imbalance that causes this, showing that something is very wrong. I do not see hunting as something fun and would otherwise be spent on necessities.

Quote from: "Alaric I"You seem to have two stance here that contradict each other.  On one hand you don't want to harm an animal and are admit to being too cowardly to point a gun at one.  On the other you want to eat cattle, which are treated poorly, held in captivity, and then brutally slaughtered vs. a quick clean kill.  So are you you against harming them or aren't you?


I am against the way they treat animals and hunting. I doubt that anyone who hunts would stop hunting. I don't like processed hamburgers, but never had the habit (like my father and grandfather didn't ) to hunt (at most fishing).
I know the evil that livestock make to the world and I think the only solution would be civilized hunting for food and severe punishment for those who mistreat livestock.
I try to eat meat created loose (don't know the correct term) and is even more expensive, as well as organic vegetables. This world is very wrong in several aspects and my contradictions only prove it. :)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Bibliofagus on February 18, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"Oh, I get it now, you just want to mess with new guy. Cool story bro.

Nope. My original post was not adressed to you.
Funny thing is that in many ways what I actually did say is supportive to your position.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: wolf39us on February 18, 2013, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"I am against the way they treat animals and hunting. I doubt that anyone who hunts would stop hunting. I don't like processed hamburgers, but never had the habit (like my father and grandfather didn't ) to hunt (at most fishing).
I know the evil that livestock make to the world and I think the only solution would be civilized hunting for food and severe punishment for those who mistreat livestock.
I try to eat meat created loose (don't know the correct term) and is even more expensive, as well as organic vegetables. This world is very wrong in several aspects and my contradictions only prove it. :)

U TAKE AWAY MY BACON???

GRRRRRRR    :x
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: "Mathias"
Quote from: "Alaric I"Read the bolded portions again and then get back to me.

Ok, It's healthier and cheapest, but even in a city like New York or Boston, for example?

People in the big citites usually will not hunt.  They have gotten away from their primal feelings.  Technology isn't always a good thing.

Quote from: "Mathias"I know a lot of people (including me) that don't have this physiological reaction. I feel like a coward pointing a gun to kill another being that I would not be harming or threatening.

 
Even so, I would prefer to be created by cattle the old fashioned way and leave the wildlife alone, because if there are many to hunt because there is an imbalance that causes this, showing that something is very wrong. I do not see hunting as something fun and would otherwise be spent on necessities.

Quote from: "Alaric I"You seem to have two stance here that contradict each other.  On one hand you don't want to harm an animal and are admit to being too cowardly to point a gun at one.  On the other you want to eat cattle, which are treated poorly, held in captivity, and then brutally slaughtered vs. a quick clean kill.  So are you you against harming them or aren't you?


Quote from: "Mathias"I am against the way they treat animals and hunting. I doubt that anyone who hunts would stop hunting. I don't like processed hamburgers, but never had the habit (like my father and grandfather didn't ) to hunt (at most fishing).
I know the evil that livestock make to the world and I think the only solution would be civilized hunting for food and severe punishment for those who mistreat livestock.
I try to eat meat created loose (don't know the correct term) and is even more expensive, as well as organic vegetables. This world is very wrong in several aspects and my contradictions only prove it. :)


If you could please explain what you mean by the word "loose"?  I don't understand this and wish to get a better idea of what you mean.
Title:
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 18, 2013, 04:05:06 PM
I think he means "free", as in "free-range" or perhaps even "wild".
Title: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on February 18, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think he means "free", as in "free-range" or perhaps even "wild".
Aha, that makes sense.  But even then they have to be slaughtered, either with a quick shot like you would a deer, or brutaly like is the case with commercial meats.  Either way his stance makes sense.  Most people that feel the way he describes are vegeans, vegetarians at best.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 19, 2013, 06:25:22 AM
Quote from: "wolf39us"
Quote from: "Mathias"I am against the way they treat animals and hunting. I doubt that anyone who hunts would stop hunting. I don't like processed hamburgers, but never had the habit (like my father and grandfather didn't ) to hunt (at most fishing).
I know the evil that livestock make to the world and I think the only solution would be civilized hunting for food and severe punishment for those who mistreat livestock.
I try to eat meat created loose (don't know the correct term) and is even more expensive, as well as organic vegetables. This world is very wrong in several aspects and my contradictions only prove it. :)

U TAKE AWAY MY BACON???

GRRRRRRR    :x


Pork is my favorite, but you can try tempeh to calm your nerves ... :)
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 19, 2013, 06:39:39 AM
Quote from: "Alaric I"People in the big citites usually will not hunt.  They have gotten away from their primal feelings.  Technology isn't always a good thing.

Agreed, technology increased longevity, even if eating feedlot cattle and eat vegetable (with pesticides), juices (with preservatives and pesticides); etc..


Quote from: "Alaric I"If you could please explain what you mean by the word "loose"?  I don't understand this and wish to get a better idea of what you mean.

I meant about cattle raised as before, in large spaces, without hormones and antibiotics.
Title: Re: NRA's enemies list.
Post by: Mathias on February 19, 2013, 06:51:24 AM
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"
Quote from: "Alaric I"There definitely needs to be better regulation, but I don't see any reason to ban [s:17nlkuah]guns[/s:17nlkuah] nukes.

Me neither. Nukes are okay. There is no reason at all these should not be sold to the likes of timothy mcveigh.

Oh, I get it now, you just want to mess with new guy. Cool story bro.[/quote]

Now I understand why Bush Jr. thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! :)