NationStates

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:32 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Sociobiology wrote:and? this proves what? That wiki is a horrible source?

The article is sourced. Otherwise it would say ''citation needed''. Not my fault you refuse to look at facts.

n its unsourced, every link in that section is broken, and leads to blogs with empty pages. thus it is unsourced.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm**

I do not believe "assault weapons" (in quotes because the odds are not in favor of a politician who uses that term knowing its actual definition) or even high-capacity magazines. I'm fine with one needing to obtain an extra-fancy license for those sorts of things, but if one is an honest, peaceful, and responsible citizen who really wants such a weapon and is willing to jump through the necessary hoops to obtain one, that person should be able to obtain it.

Assault weapons and rifles in general do not account for a considerable percentage of shooting murders, and the cases where they are used in instances of prolific gun violence, such as mass shootings, are black swan-type events.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:37 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Sociobiology wrote: with virtually no intelligence, infrastructure, or supplies.
navy seal > former navy seal
fully supplied navy seal with intel >>>>> former navy seal with small arms and a ham radio.

Navy seals carry small arms too.

no shit
see underlined.

Like I said your judging us based on civilian status.

no on your lack of intel, infrastructure, and equipment.

worried about your government? get off your ass and vote, petition your representatives, become informed, instead of planning to lose.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:39 pm**

Big Jim P wrote:
The Ben Boys wrote:I would like to have them, but not to hunt animals...

Hunting vegetables seems kinda silly to me.

Are you kidding? Have you ever seen an onion in a blood lust, or a potato with it's vicious brown exterior? They're dangerous.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:39 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
The article is sourced. Otherwise it would say ''citation needed''. Not my fault you refuse to look at facts.

n its unsourced, every link in that section is broken, and leads to blogs with empty pages. thus it is unsourced.

Would you like one of the references from the Wiki that did work? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... _seizures/

Or the New York Times report on the event? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/natio ... wanted=all

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:40 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
The article is sourced. Otherwise it would say ''citation needed''. Not my fault you refuse to look at facts.

n its unsourced, every link in that section is broken, and leads to blogs with empty pages. thus it is unsourced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:41 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:[snip]
worried about your government? get off your ass and vote, petition your representatives, become informed, instead of planning to lose.

...You seem to be laboring under the idea that somehow this isn't being done by gun rights activists. It is.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:43 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:Navy seals carry small arms too.

no shit
see underlined.

Like I said your judging us based on civilian status.

no on your lack of intel, infrastructure, and equipment.

worried about your government? get off your ass and vote, petition your representatives, become informed, instead of planning to lose.

You dont seem to know much about guerilla warfare.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:48 pm**

It is impossible to be both a socialist and support any form of gun control. So-called Marxists who support gun control are traitors. I usually don't agree with the right, but hey, if they want an armed and revolutionary proletariat to overthrow them; I'l support that.

"There are no circumstances imaginable, not even victory, under which the proletariat should give up its possession of arms." -Karl Marx

"Arms and ammunition are on no account to be handed over; every attempt at disarmament must be frustrated, by force if need be." -Karl Marx

"The whole population shall be armed."- 4^th demand of the communist party in Germany by Marx & Engels

And arguments about rifles not being effective because the Government utilizing tanks are invalid! I'm talking about the workers arming themselves not just with rifles, but with rocket launchers and missiles!

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:02 pm**

the rise in school shootings in america is ridiculous,assualt rifles should be banned. people should be allowed to own a gun. just not an assualt rifle

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:04 pm**

Curiosityness wrote:the rise in school shootings in america is ridiculous,assualt rifles should be banned. people should be allowed to own a gun. just not an assualt rifle

Clearly you hate socialism & freedom and want a venerable proletariat to exploit.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:14 pm**

Curiosityness wrote:the rise in school shootings in america is ridiculous,assualt rifles should be banned. people should be allowed to own a gun. just not an assualt rifle

School shootings are statistical aberrations, assault rifles are already practically banned, Jesus was black, and the government is lyin' 'bout 9-11.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:14 pm**

Curiosityness wrote:the rise in school shootings in america is ridiculous,assualt rifles should be banned. people should be allowed to own a gun. just not an assualt rifle

Why not? This kid would be dead if they were illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:37 pm**

The New One wrote:
Curiosityness wrote:the rise in school shootings in america is ridiculous,assualt rifles should be banned. people should be allowed to own a gun. just not an assualt rifle

Why not? This kid would be dead if they were illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

So obviously they shouldnt be illegal due to one occurance?

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:43 pm**

Dilange wrote:
The New One wrote:
Why not? This kid would be dead if they were illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

So obviously they shouldnt be illegal due to one occurance?

That was the result of about two minutes on Google. I just used that as one, dramatic example.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:53 pm**

If assault weapons are banned, then the criminals can always get assault weapons in the black market. So basically, criminals will have assault weapons but law abiding citizens cannot get them.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:56 pm**

Divair wrote:
Cosara wrote:3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

American Revolution

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:58 pm**

First define 'assault weapons'.
I AM very much in favor of banning outright all fully automatic weapons.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:00 pm**

Genivaria wrote:First define 'assault weapons'.
I AM very much in favor of banning outright all fully automatic weapons.

Why? During the North Hollywood shootout, two men using full autos killed no one. The Virginia Tech shooter used semi-autos.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:03 pm**

Divair wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
You KNOW I meant ask them about how a rifle helps against a trained army etc.

I'm sure a trained army having a better rifle than another trained army is great. But a bunch of civilians having rifles against the entire armada of the USA?

lolwat

That's all that can be said.

Al Qaeda seems to be doing it. The Viet Cong did it.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:04 pm**

Genivaria wrote:First define 'assault weapons'.
I AM very much in favor of banning outright all fully automatic weapons.

IMO, if you want to go thru a thorough background check, put down as much as $100,000 for the gun, and spend around $10 in ammo per second of trigger time to get a machine gun, then the ball is in your court.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:07 pm**

Idaho Conservatives wrote:
Genivaria wrote:First define 'assault weapons'.
I AM very much in favor of banning outright all fully automatic weapons.

IMO, if you want to go thru a thorough background check, put down as much as $100,000 for the gun, and spend around $10 in ammo per second of trigger time to get a machine gun, then the ball is in your court.

Would that not still effectively put automatic weapons out of reach of the majority of Americans?
Actually let me put it another way.
Which is cheaper and more effective?
Banning automatic weapons outright, or making them prohibitively expensive?

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:08 pm**

Genivaria wrote:
Idaho Conservatives wrote:
IMO, if you want to go thru a thorough background check, put down as much as $100,000 for the gun, and spend around $10 in ammo per second of trigger time to get a machine gun, then the ball is in your court.

Would that not still effectively put automatic weapons out of reach of the majority of Americans?
Actually let me put it another way.
Which is cheaper and more effective?
Banning automatic weapons outright, or making them prohibitively expensive?

That's exactly what you have to do right now to get a full auto.

I don't see the point of banning something that is unattainable for 99.9% of shooters anyway

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:08 pm**

Well, I personally don't object to this being banned.

So, sure, assault weapons can be banned.

But let's leave semi-automatic rifles alone.

Posted: **Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:21 pm**

Immoren wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Well, since an M2A2 isn't a vehicle capable of operating itself, I think it would end up being a really boring fight.

Of course I meant it to have crew. You are cheeky one, aren't you darling.

NationStates

Should Assault Weapons be banned?