TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Guns
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX And for personal home defense for a woman against multiple attackers a military style weapon is ideal. Light weight, low recoil, lots of ammunition. If your mother/wife/daughter/sister was in her home being attacked by an intruder what would you rather she have, an M4 or a .22 caliber pistol? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX In fact, the forefathers of my country not only felt it was ok, they wanted to guarantee that we would be able to so they created an amendment to our Constitution. |
Re: Re: Guns
| quote: |
| Originally posted by miamigo9 Back to original guns. My kid is graduating HS this year and he will be an Army Ranger. I'm not putting him in the Army until later on this summer, but will equip him with an AR 15 and a .45 cal and 9mm just to keep his interest peaked. I am buying these weapons for him straight up so he doesn't has to use the weapons his brother already has in the Ranger Batt. I have so many weapons registered under my name already that I should worry, but don't. |
Re: Re: Guns
| quote: |
| Originally posted by miamigo9 Back to original guns. My kid is graduating HS |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Palladium |
My man. Pls understand that you raise kids to do things which matter in life. I have 2/3 who have commited themselves to defending our freedom by bearing arms to do so. Old dad did it for more than twenty years, so please don't knock me me with your cheap comments.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by miamigo9 defending our freedom |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by echosystm what, like invading iraq? being one of the biggest military powers in the world, i am pretty sure the US has no problem of freedom. |
in the wise words of Christian Slater; "its better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have one"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Palladium |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX Yes, it is ok for the general public to own military grade weapons. In fact, the forefathers of my country not only felt it was ok, they wanted to guarantee that we would be able to so they created an amendment to our Constitution. And before you start with "but they never imagined AK-47s" remember the mindset of the people who were writing the Bill of Rights. They had just successfully used an army of the people to overthrow a tyranical government. So yes, it was their every intention for the average citizen to have weapons on par with the military both for national defense as well as to keep the government in check. So no, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning military style weapons. Do you know the statistics on what percentage of gun crimes involve military style weapons? Nope? You never hear that from the anti-gun people, and that is because it is such a small number that if they ever publicized it people would think they were idiots for spending so much time and energy to ban that class of weapon. And the general public has not been able to purchase fully automatic weapons here in the US for quite some time so everyone doesn't have an M2 Browning. Here in the US it isn't a question of need, it is a right. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex Yes XaNaX as if a morbidly obese redneck could use his AK-47 or his home-made flamethrower to stop the evil gov. and their tanks and attack helicopters. What a fucking joke the whole "keeping the gov. in check" argument is, spend a little less time on gun websites and maybe more time in the voting booth making an informed decision so that you wont have guys like Nixon and Bush trying to take your rights away one by one. But yes, your option is much better upon second consideration. If the army comes to evict you from your house you could always just shoot them, how many rounds in the clip of an M4? 30? How many does it take to blow up a tank? Say, 30 thousand before the tank needs to go to MIDAS for dent repair? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by whiskers Also,  |
Our Founding Fathers' "State of Mind" was that there was no national military and that militias were set up by the individual states to ward off foreign invasion. In that case it was helpful if citizens were able to report for duty with weapons in hand.
The original text considered for adoption as the Second Amendment included no mention of militias... it guaranteed the right to bear arms without a modifier. Why do you think the words "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state" were added in the second draft?
In any case, there is no reasonable argument for the legality of automatic weapons, as XanaX has quite ironically pointed out.
What are forefathers intended is that every citizen be armed so that the new government could not become like the one they just fought to get rid of. No fucking shit I'm well aware that a citizen with an AR-15 is not going to be any match for an M1 tank or a B-2 bomber. However that does not change what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote that amendment.
Either way, I'm out of this argument. This thread is full of people who live outside the US and have lived under strict gun control their entire lives plus a few from here in the US who don't own and have never fired a military style weapon (or probably any gun for that matter judging from some of the comments) so they can only repeat what they have been spoon fed by the anti-gun media. It is like trying to argue with Bill Clinton if a blow job counts as 'sexual relations' or not.
Just to clarify, I was never arguing that it should be legal to own fully automatic weapons. And maybe you think there is no reason to own an semi-automatic military style weapon too. Fortunately in this country we don't need reasons because we have rights.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Palladium |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Why is the barrel curved? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX What are forefathers intended is that every citizen be armed so that the new government could not become like the one they just fought to get rid of. No fucking shit I'm well aware that a citizen with an AR-15 is not going to be any match for an M1 tank or a B-2 bomber. However that does not change what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote that amendment. Either way, I'm out of this argument. This thread is full of people who live outside the US and have lived under strict gun control their entire lives plus a few from here in the US who don't own and have never fired a military style weapon (or probably any gun for that matter judging from some of the comments) so they can only repeat what they have been spoon fed by the anti-gun media. It is like trying to argue with Bill Clinton if a blow job counts as 'sexual relations' or not. Just to clarify, I was never arguing that it should be legal to own fully automatic weapons. And maybe you think there is no reason to own an semi-automatic military style weapon too. Fortunately in this country we don't need reasons because we have rights. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sushipunk I know I'm not from the US... No offense mate, but I think your forefathers lived in a world very different from todays. Now, tight gun control laws (in whatever country) are there for a reason: To stop gun related violence/killings. If people don't have guns to use, then they won't be killing people with them. Sure, there will be an illegal market, but it's going to be MUCH smaller. Less people with guns = Less people shot/maimed/killed with guns. Surely? |
| quote: |
| Stats say in year �02 there were 299 gun deaths in Oz compared to approx. 30000 in the USA. For a population ratio of 1:15 (Oz v USA) that is more than 6 times more in the USA. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sushipunk Less people with guns = Less people shot/maimed/killed with guns. Surely? |
Ok, here we go...
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
homicide/suicide/accident(other), per 100,000 people
USA (2001): 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
AUS (2001): 0.24 / 1.34 / 0.10
16 times more homicide.
so, yes, USA is fucked up. no real mystery there though... i mean look at all the idiots in this thread. common pro-gun arguments:
"but bad people will get guns anyway"
"bad people will kill in other ways anyway"
both completely retarded arguments. true, bad people will get guns anyway. however, it will be far harder and they will be a shit load easier to track in the event that they do. true, bad people will kill in other ways anyway, but killing with a gun is alot easier than killing with a knife/strangling etc.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX In theory that all makes sense but in practice it doesn't work. It has been proven time and time again that gun control does not prevent gun violence. |
You also used to have a right to keep slaves in your constitution, that doesn't make it right.
Sometimes, laws need to be changed to reflect the changing times we live in. Once upon a time that meant learning to cook your own grits.
Also, from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/cops.guns/index.html
| quote: |
By Susan Candiotti CNN WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- The war on the streets is escalating. As gangs and other criminals pack more firepower, police departments say they find themselves in an arms race. Sgt. Laurie Pfeil practices shooting a semiautomatic weapon in Palm Beach County, Florida. 1 of 3 The officers say they need to level the playing field to survive. And so, on a bright October day about a dozen Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies brought out their big guns at the local firing range. Rifles crackled. Shell casings flew. Bullets sailed at 3,200 feet per second through paper targets set up a football field's length away. The sharpshooters weren't training for a SWAT team. These were the deputies who patrol the streets and roads from the glittery Gold Coast to the swamps of the Everglades. Watch cops practice firing the big guns � The fatal shooting in September of a Miami-Dade police officer by a man using an assault weapon put all South Florida police departments on edge. Two other officers were wounded by the gunfire. "It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "We are like soldiers. It is a war, " says Sgt Pfeil. Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said. "We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about." Although the gun lobby disagrees, Tessaro lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004. Cops are being trained on semiautomatic weapons, which fire a single shot at a time and are more accurate. Some semiautomatic weapons can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away. The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire. Designed to shoot from the hip, fully automatic assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute. There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds. Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years. Authorities estimate there are about 160 gangs who boast around 7000 members. "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil. So the Palm Beach Sheriff's office, like many others across the county, is training and arming everyone on the force with semiautomatic assault weapons. Many officers say it's about time. "It's different now. It's shootings on a weekly basis. Ten years ago, that just didn't happen," said Pfeil. "They don't get out and run from us anymore. They stop, and they're shooting at us." Miami's police department also is in the process of arming every officer with an assault rifle. "It's a little bit embarrassing that we're engaged in this, but what is the alternative?" said Miami police Chief John Timoney. He said gangs, in particular, are getting their hands on high-powered weapons with apparent ease. "The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney. The Miami police department evidence room has seized AK-47s, AR-15s and an assortment of other automatic and semiautomatic weapons piled on shelves from floor to ceiling. Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year. The Miami Police Department said 15 of its 79 homicides last year involved assault weapons, up from the year before. So far this year, 12 of 60 killings have involved the high-powered arms. Tessaro said he recently attended a conference for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Among the crime scene tape, squad cars, and other law enforcement gear offered for sale was the latest in high-powered assault weapons. But it takes time and money to arm everyone. In the case of Palm Beach Sheriff's office, about one-third of its deputies carry assault weapons. It could take a year to get everyone equipped. Some officers aren't waiting. Palm Beach Sheriff's deputy Carl Martin bought his own AR-15 and passed the required training. When his department offered him one of their weapons, he gave it up to someone else who was on the waiting list. "Because there's not enough to go around," he explained. E-mail to a friend CNN's Patrick Oppmann, Rich Phillips and Ann O'Neill contributed to this story. |
Dial 911 And Die - What happens when the police DON'T COME???
Thats why I have a high caliber handgun. I live in Tucson, AZ. The average response time for the Sheriff's Dept. there is about 25 minutes (I live in the boonies so to speak). I'd be DEAD in that ammount of time, so why not place a single .45 ACP hollowpoint into the intruder's nasal cavity. He won't feel a thing as death is instantaneous from a wound like that (causes sever trauma to teh front of teh brain, actually splitting the hemispheres). People need to be more open minded about this. There are thousands of defensive handgun / rifle uses every year.
Think about it for a minute - can anyone HONESTLY say that if someone came into their house armed that they'd sit there and try and use friendly words to diffuse the situation? Seriously. Say you have a beautiful young wife and a little baby girl, would you sit there and say, "Gee mister, why are you so angry? I know you are hopped up on PCP and cocaine, and Iknwo you have every intention of shooting my beautiful family to death as you rob my house, but can you please put the gun down? Then we'll drink some tea together and hgave a nice talk and you can take whatever you want, I won't even telephone the police." Be real here. The police WON'T come to your aid in time. When your loved ones LIVES are on the line would anyone seriously consider anything other than blasting the fuck who came into your house? And if you didn't have a gun, what would you do? Grab a baseball bat, or a golf club, or perhaps a fire poker from your fireplace. But either way you're intent will be to protect YOUR family no matter what the cost.
In my opinion, anyone who intends to kill or injure another person has voided their own right to life. Anyone who wants to harm another person has made a conscious decision, and knows the risks involved. You never know, that guy you may want to mug might be concealing a glock subcompact and shoot you in the chest. Or maybe he has a knife and he'll gut you. Anyone who wants to harm another is taking a risk and they deserve whatever comes to them as a result.
And the whole no guns = less crime argument just doesn't make sense to me. Mankind is is not a happy friendly loving species. So what happens if you take away guns? Theres knives. Take those? Ok, a section of pipe, or a rock, or a tree branch or a pool cue or a 2 by 4, or a vehicle, or a piece of rebar, or even your bare hands. Improvised wepaons can be just as deadly as a glock, often moreso. A blunt impact trauma that causes severe internal damage is harder to treat in the field than a penetrating gunshot wound (depending on location). My cousin was struck in the head by a rock, and was in a coma for 6 months. He's "kind of" ok now, he walks all fucked up and has very slow reflexes and has a lot of trouble doing complex motor tasks. Thats not at ALL different from what a gunshot to the head can do to a person, but wait, he wasn't shot he was bludgeoned. A person not having a gun will NOT stop them from killing or seriously injuring another person if they really wanted to.
And "Assault Rifles?" People sometimes misconstrue assault rifles as thing of movies and mayhem. Not all of them are automatic. Not all of them have to have a 45 round magazine. Many people are against them because of their high magazine capacity, and yet FN makes a handgun with a 20 round magazine (and in fact most hanguns can carry extended magazines anyway, I have 18 round mags for my M9 I carry over here). So apart from the higher muzzle velocity and ability to punch thru Level 3A armor (or even level 4 depending on the round, EG an API round or a metal jacketed javelin round), it really isn't that much more evil than a high capacity Beretta pistol is it? They make pistol rounds capable of defeading hard body armor as well.
Depending on where you live, a high capacity and high caliber weapon may be essential. I deal with coyotes, mountain lions, javelinas, bears etc when I go camping, hiking or rock climbing. So of course I carry a firearm that can properly deal with that kind of threat. My weapon of choice? A Socom 16 (Essentially a modernized M14, a little shorter and with a scope mounted on top and a collapsing stock), which fires a 7.62x51 MM NATO round, and fires from a 20 round magazine (I carry 3). Is that so evil of me to want to protect myself from an animal that can kill me (or worse maim me beyond recognition)? Tho I'm a wicked shot it may take more than 1 or 2 shots to ake down a charging bear. From a highly trained shooter, I can tell you that more rounds is always better. Even afetr dropping a target I'm always ready to sink another round if I have to.
I don't consider myself to be a bad person or a murderer or anything of the sort. I do view myself as a realist. This is not a friendly world and you should be able to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by SteelWolf I live in the boonies. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by SteelWolf Seriously. Say you have a beautiful young wife and a little baby girl, would you sit there and say, "Gee mister, why are you so angry? I know you are hopped up on PCP and cocaine, and Iknwo you have every intention of shooting my beautiful family to death as you rob my house. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by SteelWolf I do view myself as a realist. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by SteelWolf protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.