Gun Bans

[Republica Newland]

A shotgun is not a grenade launcher. Funny for you to mention non-sequitur as this is a great example.

wrong

Jesus Christ.. OK,so you want to get all technical about it? That is a fin-stabilized sabot round. Your turn.

The first picture is funny. It looks like a miniature unguided bomb

[Dyakovo]

Jesus Christ.. OK,so you want to get all technical about it? That is a fin-stabilized sabot round. Your turn.

The first picture is funny. It looks like a miniature unguided bomb

A shotgun is perfectly capable of acting as a grenade launcher

[Sociobiology]

wrong

Jesus Christ.. OK,so you want to get all technical about it? That is a fin-stabilized sabot round. Your turn.

The first picture is funny. It looks like a miniature unguided bomb

both wrong the first is the military CS gas grenade for a shotgun, and the latter is the british shotgun fin stabilized frag grenade.

[Sociobiology]

racism and classism were not involved.
so they would be non-sequitur not cherry picking.

did you miss the posts were I went over both the possible reasons for targeting Saturday night specials (a small number of the guns targeted in the bill) and the reasons actually given for targeting them?

I generally refrain from replying to posts which aren't worthwhile,but I'll make an exception just for you.Saturday Night Specials won't blow up in your hand.They're simply affordable,no frills guns.Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

at the time they also often had no serial number which the law introduced as mandatory. At the time they were believed to be especially useful as as disposable weapons for criminals, this was wrong it turns out, but it is the justification given by the writers of the bill.

Do you have any proof that that Saturday night specials were a target because they were available to the poor? Because Jim and Dyakovo didn't.

[Republica Newland]

Jesus Christ.. OK,so you want to get all technical about it? That is a fin-stabilized sabot round. Your turn.

The first picture is funny. It looks like a miniature unguided bomb

both wrong the first is the military CS gas grenade for a shotgun, and the latter is the british shotgun fin stabilized frag grenade.

You're deplorable at this. Please stop trying. Military use of chemical weapons is very illegal by a number of international conventions. Whatever your sources are,they're shit.

[Sociobiology]

both wrong the first is the military CS gas grenade for a shotgun, and the latter is the british shotgun fin stabilized frag grenade.

You're deplorable at this. Please stop trying. Military use of chemical weapons is very illegal by a number of international conventions. Whatever your sources are,they're shit.

CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed, but go on keep advertising your ignorance.

[Republica Newland]

I generally refrain from replying to posts which aren't worthwhile,but I'll make an exception just for you.Saturday Night Specials won't blow up in your hand.They're simply affordable,no frills guns.Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

at the time they also often had no serial number which the law introduced as mandatory. At the time they were believed to be especially useful as as disposable weapons for criminals, this was wrong it turns out, but it is the justification given by the writers of the bill.

Do you have any proof that that Saturday night specials were a target because they were available to the poor? Because Jim and Dyakovo didn't.

So you admit it was wrong. Which makes it irrelevant in trying to justify it.

And regarding the serial numbers,they didn't need to ban the guns,just enforce the law which makes it mandatory to have serial numbers. I'm pretty sure the manufacturers would have promptly complied. If not,well,too bad for them,they were banned from selling guns not carrying serial numbers in the first place.

Banning or restricting firearms by name just makes me want to facepalm myself into oblivion,because it is so monumentally dumb.

[Sociobiology]

at the time they also often had no serial number which the law introduced as mandatory. At the time they were believed to be especially useful as as disposable weapons for criminals, this was wrong it turns out, but it is the justification given by the writers of the bill.

Do you have any proof that that Saturday night specials were a target because they were available to the poor? Because Jim and Dyakovo didn't.

So you admit it was wrong. Which makes it irrelevant in trying to justify it.

who is justifying it?

[Republica Newland]

So you admit it was wrong. Which makes it irrelevant in trying to justify it.

who is justifying it?

Then what are you doing attacking somebody for pointing out how obviously classist it is?

[Paddy O Fernature]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

For the 4th time.

[Alien Space Bats]

That sound you hear is my engine as I execute another drive-by...

Military use of chemical weapons is very illegal by a number of international conventions. Whatever your sources are,they're shit.

The United States military is also equipped for deployment during domestic emergencies (eg., the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where 2,000 U.S. Army [7th Light Division] and 1,500 Marines [I Marine Expeditionary Force] were deployed alongside 10,000 National Guardsmen); in that capacity, they are certainly permitted to use tear gas. In addition, the U.S. is known to have used CS gas to flush tunnels out during the Vietnam Conflict; we only agreed to consider it a chemical weapon subject to international restrictions in 1997 (something many people here in the States have roundly criticized ever since we agreed to said restriction).

That said, it's still legal for domestic use, even by military organizations.

[Sociobiology]

who is justifying it?

Then what are you doing attacking somebody for pointing out how obviously classist it is?

because they never demonstrated it was classist.

[Republica Newland]

You're deplorable at this. Please stop trying. Military use of chemical weapons is very illegal by a number of international conventions. Whatever your sources are,they're shit.

CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed, but go on keep advertising your ignorance.

Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. The reasoning behind the prohibition is pragmatic: use of CS by one combatant could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic chemical weapons such as nerve agents. Only five nations have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and are therefore unhindered by restrictions on the use of CS gas: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria.

Legend:



So you want to keep on making a fool of yourself?

Go ahead.

[The Emerald Dawn]

CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed, but go on keep advertising your ignorance.

Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. The reasoning behind the prohibition is pragmatic: use of CS by one combatant could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic chemical weapons such as nerve agents. Only five nations have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and are therefore unhindered by restrictions on the use of CS gas: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria.

Legend:



So you want to keep on making a fool of yourself?

Go ahead.

*cough*

That sound you hear is my engine as I execute another drive-by...

Military use of chemical weapons is very illegal by a number of international conventions. Whatever your sources are,they're shit.

The United States military is also equipped for deployment during domestic emergencies (eg., the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where 2,000 U.S. Army [7th Light Division] and 1,500 Marines [I Marine Expeditionary Force] were deployed alongside 10,000 National Guardsmen); in that capacity, they are certainly permitted to use tear gas. In addition, the U.S. is known to have used CS gas to flush tunnels out during the Vietnam Conflict; we only agreed to consider it a chemical weapon subject to international restrictions in 1997 (something many people here in the States have roundly criticized ever since we agreed to said restriction).

That said, it's still legal for domestic use, even by military organizations.

[Rambo and elmo]

Linky?



That makes slightly more sense.

Page 83:

My original plan, with some enhancement by Dyakovo:

Make safety and marksmanship training available (in high school for the most part with separate training available for those who have already graduated). Upon passing the course you get issued a perpetual license that can only be revoked due to a diagnoses of mental illness, or a relevant criminal act on the part of the licensee. That license being the only thing you need to purchase, own, or carry (open or concealed) a firearm.

Dyas enhancement: Separate endorsements on the license for rifles, shotguns and handguns.

[Republica Newland]

(Image)

Legend:
(Image)


So you want to keep on making a fool of yourself?

Go ahead.

*cough*

That sound you hear is my engine as I execute another drive-by...


The United States military is also equipped for deployment during domestic emergencies (eg., the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where 2,000 U.S. Army [7th Light Division] and 1,500 Marines [I Marine Expeditionary Force] were deployed alongside 10,000 National Guardsmen); in that capacity, they are certainly permitted to use tear gas. In addition, the U.S. is known to have used CS gas to flush tunnels out during the Vietnam Conflict; we only agreed to consider it a chemical weapon subject to international restrictions in 1997 (something many people here in the States have roundly criticized ever since we agreed to said restriction).

That said, it's still legal for domestic use, even by military organizations.

I was already aware of all of the above. My bad for taking as a given that we were talking about use in war. This

CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed

is still false because he too failed to mention a vital piece of information,that he was talking about domestic use. Although I suspect he actually wasn't aware of any of the above information. Saying that "CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed" like somehow a chemical weapon is "allowed" just because it's a tear gas makes me believe that.

[Sociobiology]

*cough*

I was already aware of all of the above. My bad for taking as a given that we were talking about use in war. This

CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed

is still false because he too failed to mention he was talking about domestic use. Although I suspect he actually wasn't aware of any of the above information. Saying that "CS gas is tear geas and more than allowed" like somehow a chemical weapon is "allowed" just because it's a tear gas makes me believe that.

why does matter were it is legal to use it, when the argument was about what it was. I didn't tell you its mass or spectroscopic profile either.

[Republica Newland]

I was already aware of all of the above. My bad for taking as a given that we were talking about use in war. This

is still false because he too failed to mention he was talking about domestic use. Although I suspect he actually wasn't aware of any of the above information. Saying that "CS gas is tear geas and more than allowed" like somehow a chemical weapon is "allowed" just because it's a tear gas makes me believe that.

why does matter were it is legal to use it, when the argument was about what it was.

So again you admit to be proven wrong. Good,I see we're making progress. Ridding people of their ignorance is a long and difficult process.

[Sociobiology]

why does matter were it is legal to use it, when the argument was about what it was.

So again you admit to be proven wrong.

about what?

are you still arguing it is not a grenade?

[Dyakovo]

I generally refrain from replying to posts which aren't worthwhile,but I'll make an exception just for you.Saturday Night Specials won't blow up in your hand.They're simply affordable,no frills guns.Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

at the time they also often had no serial number which the law introduced as mandatory. At the time they were believed to be especially useful as as disposable weapons for criminals, this was wrong it turns out, but it is the justification given by the writers of the bill.

Do you have any proof that that Saturday night specials were a target because they were available to the poor? Because Jim and Dyakovo didn't.

That's not the question you asked...

[Sociobiology]

at the time they also often had no serial number which the law introduced as mandatory. At the time they were believed to be especially useful as as disposable weapons for criminals, this was wrong it turns out, but it is the justification given by the writers of the bill.

Do you have any proof that that Saturday night specials were a target because they were available to the poor? Because Jim and Dyakovo didn't.

That's not the question you asked...

then why would their banning be racist and classist as Jim claimed?

[Dyakovo]

n/m

[Big Jim P]

Then what are you doing attacking somebody for pointing out how obviously classist it is?

because they never demonstrated it was classist.

Restricting inexpensive guns simply becase they are inexpensive is by it's very nature, classist.

Economic Class

Because the price of a firearm can determine who is able to buy it, the elimination of inexpensive firearms could have a direct effect upon those of lesser means. Roy Innis, president of the activist group Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said "To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." (CORE filed as an amicus curiae in a 1985 suit challenging Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban.[4]) The Wright and Rossi evaluation of the National Institute of Justice study (p. 238) concluded: "The people most likely to be deterred from acquiring a handgun by exceptionally high prices or by the nonavailability of certain kinds of handguns are not felons intent on arming themselves for criminal purposes (who can, if all else fails, steal the handgun they want), but rather poor people who have decided they need a gun to protect themselves against the felons but who find that the cheapest gun in the market costs more than they can afford to pay."[4

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

Yes it is wiki, but it is a well sourced article.

[Big Jim P]

That's not the question you asked...

then why would their banning be racist and classist as Jim claimed?

I finally got around to providing you a source.

[Dyakovo]

then why would their banning be racist and classist as Jim claimed?

I finally got around to providing you a source.

He just had his panties in a bunch because I answered the question he asked, rather than the question that he apparently wanted to ask.