Obama speaks on changes to US gun laws

[Ovisterra]

History says fighting to the death for stupid causes doesn't end well.

Says the guy that supports gun bans.

I don't think Wikki is planning to fight for the death for gun control, so your attempted witty rhetoric falls slightly flat.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

In a truly armed society said person with gun would be shot once the threats were ordered by the chef, waiters, and customers thank you very much

Yawn...thankfully, you have demonstrated enough disconnection from reality that you are likely to be prevented from assuming any significant power. Problem solved, I suppose.

I hope one day you and me are in the same store and it gets mugged. Cause ill just look at you and be like i could shoot this guy and save us both but you said it was stupid so fuck it ill just let him kill us both. I'm being sarcastic I'd shoot the guy then laugh in your face.

[Amerikians]

And pretty much go down for murder if it wasn't justifiable homicide.

[Chernoslavia]

Says the guy that supports gun bans.

I don't think Wikki is planning to fight for the death for gun control, so your attempted witty rhetoric falls slightly flat.

As if I said anything about what Wiki would do...

[Ovisterra]

I don't think Wikki is planning to fight for the death for gun control, so your attempted witty rhetoric falls slightly flat.

Truly, your debating prowess knows no bounds.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

And pretty much go down for murder if it wasn't justifiable homicide.

You ever hear of self defense... besides i would shoot him in the leg and trigger hand not his face

[Amerikians]

Unfathomable beyond belief.

[Amerikians]

And pretty much go down for murder if it wasn't justifiable homicide.

You ever hear of self defense... besides i would shoot him in the leg and trigger hand not his face

You pretty much just proved you don't know how to shoot with the latter part of that sentence.

Also, as I said, justifiable homicide; also known as self-defense.

[Sane Outcasts]

And pretty much go down for murder if it wasn't justifiable homicide.

You ever hear of self defense... besides i would shoot him in the leg and trigger hand not his face

Oh, so you've no idea how to use a firearm for personal defense, then.

[Dyakovo]

Says the guy that supports gun bans.

Red Dawn is awesome (the old one) just thought i'd mention that

It's also just a movie, and does not actually represent real life...

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

Unfathomable beyond belief.

Im not sure what your insulting my conscience or my aim but trust me both are dead accurate

[Choronzon]

You mean we are going to perform background checks on gun owners, even if they buy their guns at gun shows?

The horror. So much for the gun lobby's claim that it will support "reasonable" measures. Sorry, but if you think we shouldn't be performing background checks on people who try and get their guns at gun shows then you are not interested in reasonable solutions and shouldn't be allowed at the big boy table while the grown ups are talking.

[Chernoslavia]

Truly, your debating prowess knows no bounds.

No, im just not gonna waist time argueing with someone who's logic people have disproved plenty of times.

[Amerikians]

Unfathomable beyond belief.

Im not sure what your insulting my conscience or my aim but trust me both are dead accurate

Wasn't aimed at you.

[Ovisterra]

Truly, your debating prowess knows no bounds.

No, im just not gonna waist time argueing with someone who's logic people have disproved plenty of times.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. If you change your mind, I'm always up for a bit of discussion.

[Choronzon]

Truly, your debating prowess knows no bounds.

No, im just not gonna waist time argueing with someone who's logic people have disproved plenty of times.

I'm sorry, is a member of the gun lobby complaining about people repeating bullshit, often refuted claims?

Thats pretty rich.

[Chernoslavia]

No, im just not gonna waist time argueing with someone who's logic people have disproved plenty of times.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. If you change your mind, I'm always up for a bit of discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=218869&p=12537294&sid=ac3f109176ae379ef5ec90f64b0c6474#p12537294

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I go away for two and a quarter hours for archery, and return to this madhouse.
Roit. Note I'm having to reply to ~17 pages of new replies so,
BRING ON THE WALL

The numerous proposals to ban 'military style weapons', which are being banned based on cosmetic features.
Proposals which have already been passed in states like New York.

I haven't seen any that solely ban weapons based on how they look. I have seen bans based on how they function.
Also, whatever happened to states rights?

Since the SGL-20 series in the OP is an assault weapon and the Saiga-14 would typically not be regarded as one, yes, assault weapon bans typically target past and present service rifles based on appearance.
No ban specifically prohibits semi-automatic firearms as an entire category, which would be bans on function.

You mean what every other firearm does?

I meant rate of fire, etc.

Ohohoho. You think every gun is the same? Silly lad.

Child.
A practiced shooter can match aimed fire of a lever or pump action with careful aimed fire of a semi-automatic very easily.

Statistically insignificant.

There do not exist enough palms nor faces to create as many facepalms as this deserves.

I mean, you're going to basically call them a statistic? Really?

I never understood this line of logic.
Yes, they are statistics. They were statistics before the 14th and they are now.

Their deaths were tragedies, but in being deaths, they have become statistics.

It's a good thing that responsible gun owners aren't threatening then.

And behold, we try and regulate guns so that irresponsible people cannot by guns.

By also preventing responsible people from owning the type of firearm they desire.

I don't care for these people. If it isn't them, those who fear and hate firearms will use any other excuse to try and ban and make life harder for those who want to legally purchase the firearms that they want and be left alone.

Thanks for saying you dont care about innocent children who were mowed down in a school shooting.

No-one gives a shit about Lanza's poor, stressed-out mother, gunned down in her own fucking sleep.
Biden failed to even acknowledge her as a casualty at the beginning of Obama's speech. She was as innocent as any of those children or teachers.

I'm still amused that nobody who's against this has any decent argument in favour of keeping assault rifles other than trying to divert the topic to cars or some other bullshit which isn't at all relevant to banning assault rifles, eventually hoping they can drag the topic to guns in general to they can dig up the 'old reliable' to keep the ones supporting the ban at bay.

Why do they need banning? What makes them more dangerous than a .30-30 deer rifle, a .30-06 BAR-derived hunting rifle as shown in the OP? What makes a Saiga-14 less deadly than an SGL-20, as shown in the OP? What makes an SKS less deadly than an AK or a Saiga? From the point of the view of the person being shot at, the three are identical, despite each having completely different appearances. The SKS doesn't even have a detachable magazine.

You know, just throwing this out there, but if we could get RFID locks on guns so that only the people who are registered to that gun can operate, while ensuring that said RFID locks cannot be removed or disabled.... that might be the only thing that can well and truly stop black market and under the table gun trade.

So how do you go about making it non-removable?
Without electronic ignition, you can't. Even then, you can't guarantee, though it would be a fuckton more difficult to do so.

I have an argument for the pro-gunners to heed. I live in the Netherlands. We have an all-out ban on weapons. All of them. MG's, assault rifles, handguns, tasers... Nothing is allowed. And our democracy is stronger than that of the US. Almost no people get killed by guns. I can ride my bike through the abandoned streets at 4 am, without getting raped, attacked or getting my throat slit. There are no mobs of 100's of people raiding towns and shops. It is safe. We have a more powerfull weapon here. We have words, we lack lobbies. We have no gun advocates. We have human right advocates. We have politicians who ccare more about the American people than most politicians. How do you explain this public order?

Because the Netherlands has legalised and decriminalised various types of narcotics, has a far better ratio of poverty and a narrower income equality gap.
The fact that America doesn't have any of those is one of the major drives behind crime that leads to gang control and culture that would make you not want to ride a bike around at 4am.

Societal and cultural differences breed vastly different roots of crime.

cops have guns

Which they know how to handle, which doesn't count for Billy who's been shooting empty beer bottles in his backyard.

But sure, that beats the police academy.

Which is why people should have to receive a training course in the safe operation and ownership of their firearms.
Can't believe I forgot to bring up that opinion in the last two threads on this.

Statistically speaking, in mass shootings, good guys with guns get shot by bad guys with guns, and possibly with the good guys with guns shooting other good guys in the process.

I'll tell you what really stops a bad guy with a gun in the vast majority of cases: The bad guy has either zero or one bullets.

Actually, what usually stops them is either them committing suicide the instant they think the police are nearby, or by a civilian confronting and disarming them. Not always when armed either.

Yes, true, btw ever heard of the Texas Tower Massacre? Civilians and a cop we're the ones who put the sniper down.

That's right.
The cops had to go find a civilian with a rifle to play counter-sniper with the shooter.
Guess who won that one?

If you're thinking "well, that's an obvious example", guess what this is.
(Image)
It's a BAR. Yep, you are thinking of the right one. The one the US used as a light machine gun.
That's not a conversion either: it really is a BAR.

I stopped taking you seriously right here.

Only the most ignorant of laymen would mistake the Browning BAR for the Browning Automatic Rifle. They don't even use the same action. One is automatic, feeds from 20-round magazines, is usually chambered in .30-06, and is an outdated and rarely-used military-exclusive weapon. The other is semi-automatic, feeds from 5-round magazines, is chambered in just about everything under the sun, and is a modern, widely-used (among big-game hunters) civilian weapon designed from the ground up for hunting.


Let this be a lesson to all you people who don't know the difference between a Kalashnikov and a Kel-Tec: Either learn a little bit about firearms, or don't try to tell other people about "teh ebil gawnz".

Scroll to the bottom of the fucking page and read the link 'history of the BAR'.
Note how it then describes how awesome the BAR M1918A2 was in World War 2.

Just because it's semi-automatic and uses a shorter magazine does not mean it's a different weapon. Otherwise you couldn't ban AK pattern rifles, because they miraculously wouldn't be AK pattern rifles anymore.
Guess what on multi-calibre, before the Second World War, it wasn't uncommon for a new weapon to be chambered in just about fucking anything. Saigas, AKs, Veprs, ARs and what-else-have-you also come in a variety of calibre options, depending on what platform you go for they typically range everything from .22LR to 7.62x54mmR
Which is practically the full gamut, so far as service cartridges go.
Some sub-variants include stuff like a number of .50 cartridges, shotshell conversions and older stuff like 8mm Mauser.

This I would be okay with...

RFID tags would have to be re-encodable to account for changes in gun ownership, which would mean any gains accomplished would be done away with once dem thugs figure out how to do the same thing.

They already do it to our credit cards, and soon our very own minds.
http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=2471

I thought it was the accountants who put Capone away...

DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!

The man who was responsible for more civilian murders than any other private citizen in the history of the US was stopped not buy a civilian gunman, not by a SWAT team, but by the IRS.

And thus, the good guys with guns argument is ultimately invalid.

That's some rather heavily retarded logic, even if I agreed that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.

Define "military-grade firearms".

Assault rifles and submachine guns, for one. Also, automatic weaponry in general. The M16A4 is a good example.

The line with bolt-action rifles and sniper rifles is thin, considering people use those for hunting, but in that case I'd suggest a specific permit should suffice. The average citizen wouldn't need more than a handgun, in my opinion.

Newsflash, almost no-one in the United States can or will own an M16A4. Or A3. Or 2, or 1.
They can have an AR-15, but no M16 models.

Why are we preventing people from having military grade firearms...Isn't the second amendment military, it's not about hunting thats for sure.

Because they're dangerous and allow massacres due to their fast rate of fire and bullet capacity.

The second amendment was written with muskets in mind, no fully automatic rifles. Translating it directly into the 21th century is silly.

I never understood how people could say "The Second Amendment was written for the early US, you can't change it!" then just go "they never considered automatic weapons!"
The Founding Fathers never anticipated the internet, but hey, the 1st Amendment's still covered there.

In fact, the Supreme Court deemed many of California's restrictions unconstitutional, as well as Chicago's now-expired handgun bans and long-arm storage restrictions.

Taking away high-cap weapons will do nothing but take them from law-abiding citizens.

I'm tired of that argument. It implies that people who legally purchase guns never commit crimes with them. It also implies that access to illegal guns of that sort is quite easy, and that it could not be controlled by a competent police force. And it also implies that "law-abiding" citizens need high-cap weapons. I'd like to know exactly why.

Most of them actually don't commit crimes with them, shockingly. Because they've acquired and maintained them lawfully.

Define assault rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Congrats, you've lost.
Very few people in the US are able to own a weapon fitting the real definition on 'assault rifle', and the M16A4s and A3s you worry about are certainly not covered under that, since they can't have been registered prior to 1986.

dosn't matter, it specifys that the "PEOPLE" have the right to bear arms, not just the military.

You know, in this country when we say "we the people" we usually mean "we the people"

It also says "well regulated militia".

It says a well regulated militia should be maintained, with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
While the militia, assuming you mean National Guard, technically does bear arms, they don't keep them.
Keep typically implies ownership. Last time I checked, service personnel didn't get to keep their weapons after coming off-tour.

In lieu of that, seems the alternative ought to be kept open.

agreed, its a right.

Indeed, but to have six automatic rifles and a cannon is not a right. Which is pretty much the sum of the pro-gun control argument.

Why not?

Because you don't need such items for your defense or livelihood unless you happen to live in Kabul.

Spreewerke personally owns about six semi-automatic rifles, some dedicated sporters, a number of Mosin-type rifles, some shotguns and plenty of handguns.
He uses his own time, money and property to train novices in the safe use and ownership of firearms and in between college classes, he volunteers at a gun store, acting as the local Eastern Bloc weapons expert (a trait he brings over to NS's F&NI board) and general busybody. He's also a really handy hunter, as is most of his family.

Why should, of all people, his desire as presently covered by the second amendment to fill various rooms in his house with Eastern firearms be denied?

You mean we are going to perform background checks on gun owners, even if they buy their guns at gun shows?

The horror. So much for the gun lobby's claim that it will support "reasonable" measures. Sorry, but if you think we shouldn't be performing background checks on people who try and get their guns at gun shows then you are not interested in reasonable solutions and shouldn't be allowed at the big boy table while the grown ups are talking.

Read the thread dude.
I've supported a tightening of background checks from the start (admittedly by replacing it with a different system that does the same thing, but in a way that sounds more streamlined).

What gets on my tits is the weapon bans.
You can reduce gun crime by focusing on the causes of gun crime.

Yes, there are causes of gun crime.
It stems much further beyond 'guns are there' (though admittedly sometimes, that's exactly it).

[Choronzon]

Read the thread dude.

I have. My comment wasn't directed at you.

Believe or not, not every thread revolves around you. Not every response is a response to you personally.

[Tires Rock]

>trying to outlaw magazines


el oh el


I basically trip over that shit. Seriously. Fuck, you can MAKE your own magazines if you really wanted to, they're plastic and metal boxes with springs in them, how the hell can you ban them?

Also


>hurr military style assault weapons

Military's have used revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles, and basically any oher weapon effective for warfare. 'Military style weapons' is a useless fucking term for 'its scary looking'. Fucking soccer mom bullshit.



Otherwise, I approve of stricter background checks and similar ideas, but don't try to make the American populace castrated from its ability to defend itself.

Yer ability to defend yaself is negated when a squadron of A-10s comes for ya. What will a rifle do against these?



In a bonafide revolution guns don't matter, so long as the rebels are carrying arms of some kind and have the numbers. How many soldiers would defect? If these militias took on the military in a straight fight, their azzez'd be given an 80s B-lister plastic surgery job.

[Free South Califas]

Truly, your debating prowess knows no bounds.

No, im just not gonna waist time argueing with someone who's logic people have disproved plenty of times.

I'm sorry to be the one to point this out to you, but you don't actually understand logic. I suggest brushing up a bit: http://afterall.net/illogic

You tried to point to some kind of imaginary hypocrisy, but it fell flat because Ovisterra never suggested that ze would die for gun control. It's a false equivalence. You literally did logic wrong. It's not others' fault that they find it barely worth the time it takes to type the smiley code.

Read the thread dude.

I have. My comment wasn't directed at you.

Believe or not, not every thread revolves around you. Not every response is a response to you personally.

Perhaps it's time to reexamine our priorities, NSG.

You mean we are going to perform background checks on gun owners, even if they buy their guns at gun shows?

The horror. So much for the gun lobby's claim that it will support "reasonable" measures. Sorry, but if you think we shouldn't be performing background checks on people who try and get their guns at gun shows then you are not interested in reasonable solutions and shouldn't be allowed at the big table while the grown ups are talking.

That's pretty much where I'm at. If you support background checks at gun stores but not gun shows, you're not offering a serious debate position. If you support checks at neither venue, you just have a radically more violent social vision than this society is probably ever going to abide, but that could at least be an internally consistent position.

[Chernoslavia]

>trying to outlaw magazines


el oh el


I basically trip over that shit. Seriously. Fuck, you can MAKE your own magazines if you really wanted to, they're plastic and metal boxes with springs in them, how the hell can you ban them?

Also


>hurr military style assault weapons

Military's have used revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles, and basically any oher weapon effective for warfare. 'Military style weapons' is a useless fucking term for 'its scary looking'. Fucking soccer mom bullshit.



Otherwise, I approve of stricter background checks and similar ideas, but don't try to make the American populace castrated from its ability to defend itself.

Yer ability to defend yaself is negated when a squadron of A-10s comes for ya. What will a rifle do against these?



In a bonafide revolution guns don't matter, so long as the rebels are carrying arms of some kind and have the numbers. How many soldiers would defect? If these militias took on the military in a straight fight, their azzez'd be given an 80s B-lister plastic surgery job.

Yes, but it cant hit what it cant see. No squad will call in an A-10 for one enemy soldier.

[Genivaria]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

[Tires Rock]

Yer ability to defend yaself is negated when a squadron of A-10s comes for ya. What will a rifle do against these?



In a bonafide revolution guns don't matter, so long as the rebels are carrying arms of some kind and have the numbers. How many soldiers would defect? If these militias took on the military in a straight fight, their azzez'd be given an 80s B-lister plastic surgery job.

Yes, but it cant hit what it cant see. No squad will call in an A-10 for one enemy soldier.

What about a whole posse/militia of em?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

Then the entirety of America, as an entity is wrong.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution defines every aspect of your country.

To declare it forfeit and start again is wut and impossible.