NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the NRA's recent statements, I have changed my stance on protecting American students. It's important that they remain safe from harm, because it's a dangerous world out there. And sometimes, the only way to make an area safe, is to make it more dangerous.

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The NRA says that our schools would be safer if civilians are armed with guns inside our schools, and that everyone has the right to bear arms. In my opinion, government buildings are no different. The fact that I can't walk into the Pentagon with a rocket launcher or drive a tank on the front lawn of the White House is an infringement upon my second amendment rights. Southerners shouldn't have to have ugly gun racks in their pickup trucks. Fully-mountable submachine guns should be legal.

Furthermore, I propose that instead of children being driven in school buses, that instead, every right-wing nutjob, hick, biblethumper, sheepfucker, and Klan member (as well as all the liberals) be issued state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets, with laser-guided, pinpoint accuracy and a take-off weight and carrying capacity of around 500 kilotons, ensuring that it can carry enough weaponry to carpetbomb at least several major cities, before having to resupply.

And yes, definitely an F-16. B-52 bombers were useful to kill hundreds of thousands of people in World War II, but no, they're not a powerful enough machine to protect the American people. And allowing Americans to own B-52 bombers, but not F-16s is an infringement upon my right to bear arms.

Lastly, it should be stated that "nuclear proliferation" is a misnomer. It is an outright lie started by John Kerry, to terrify us. The truth is that the spreading of nuclear weapons makes us safe. For example, you might not realize this, but America is currently giving Pakistan support for their nuclear weapons program, so that we can keep our own American troops there and keep it secure. If we didn't, oh, they'd totally try to fuck us over. Diplomacy or asking them to disarm is fucking stupid.

So, the last I thing I have to propose is that each state form its own militia of civilian citizens, to fight off terrorists, if those damn redcoats come here and try to make us pay taxes without representation. And since the U.S. has about 10 thousand nuclear weapons (more than any other country in the world---BITCHES!!), that number should be divided by 50, giving each state milita its fair share of the weaponry, except for California. They are homosexual, anti-American, war-protesting Communists, and will recieve nothing. California will hereby no longer by a member of the United States, but a rogue nation which must be invaded, with its population thrown into torturous prisons, without trial or dignity. Texas, however, will recieve a double portion of the nuclear weapons, due to their need to bravely kill off starving, unarmed Mexicans from crossing the border. Thank you for your time.

Yeah! I loves my gun, loves my gun.
*strokes it*
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

In light of the NRA's recent statements, I have changed my stance on protecting American students. It's important that they remain safe from harm, because it's a dangerous world out there. And sometimes, the only way to make an area safe, is to make it more dangerous.

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Guns yes. Hand grenades no, they are too dangerous.

The NRA says that our schools would be safer if civilians are armed with guns inside our schools, and that everyone has the right to bear arms. In my opinion, government buildings are no different. The fact that I can't walk into the Pentagon with a rocket launcher or drive a tank on the front lawn of the White House is an infringement upon my second amendment rights. Southerners shouldn't have to have ugly gun racks in their pickup trucks. Fully-mountable submachine guns should be legal.

I agree, some of those things should be legalized. Although, what purpose would the average law-abiding gun-carrying citizen HAVE to walk up to Pennsylvania Avenues with a weapon like a rocket launcher? Most of them agree with the sitting President's policies.




Furthermore, I propose that instead of children being driven in school buses, that instead, every right-wing nutjob, hick, biblethumper, sheepfucker, and Klan member (as well as all the liberals) be issued state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets, with laser-guided, pinpoint accuracy and a take-off weight and carrying capacity of around 500 kilotons, ensuring that it can carry enough weaponry to carpetbomb at least several major cities, before having to resupply.

And yes, definitely an F-16. B-52 bombers were useful to kill hundreds of thousands of people in World War II, but no, they're not a powerful enough machine to protect the American people. And allowing Americans to own B-52 bombers, but not F-16s is an infringement upon my right to bear arms.


Planes are inherently expensive. No private citizen could afford to buy or maintain one for combat purposes. People who actually have earned enough money to do so are probably responsible enough to be allowed to buy military hardware.
Lastly, it should be stated that "nuclear proliferation" is a misnomer. It is an outright lie started by John Kerry, to terrify us. The truth is that the spreading of nuclear weapons makes us safe. For example, you might not realize this, but America is currently giving Pakistan support for their nuclear weapons program, so that we can keep our own American troops there and keep it secure. If we didn't, oh, they'd totally try to fuck us over. Diplomacy or asking them to disarm is fucking stupid.

So, the last I thing I have to propose is that each state form its own militia of civilian citizens, to fight off terrorists, if those damn redcoats come here and try to make us pay taxes without representation. And since the U.S. has about 10 thousand nuclear weapons (more than any other country in the world---BITCHES!!), that number should be divided by 50, giving each state milita its fair share of the weaponry, except for California. They are homosexual, anti-American, war-protesting Communists, and will recieve nothing. California will hereby no longer by a member of the United States, but a rogue nation which must be invaded, with its population thrown into torturous prisons, without trial or dignity. Texas, however, will recieve a double portion of the nuclear weapons, due to their need to bravely kill off starving, unarmed Mexicans from crossing the border. Thank you for your time.

I agree with your views on California, but am saddened by your characterization of Texas.

i no! we can force all the companys and their raw materials supliers to produce everything for free/greater good! kind of communist, but the price u pay for arming everyone to the teeth

Nothing wrong with guns as long as a mature person is using it.

Trust me

If someone really wanted to kill someone they would find other ways to do...you don't really need a gun to kill people...homemade bombs can be just as deadly

Also you can carry concealed weapons but that doesn't give you the right to carry them anywhere. You can't bring them into chruches and government buildings are schools. All the bill of rights says is that you have the right to bare arms, not the right to carry them anywhere you want

Uh, people...I do believe this is satire...

"If someone really wanted to kill someone they would find other ways to do...you don't really need a gun to kill people...homemade bombs can be just as deadly"

Sure there's other ways to kill people, but why stab some guy when you can just blow his brains out? Why take all my energy out running up to people when I can just take out any hand gun and kill 6 people? (approximately)

Nothing wrong with guns as long as a mature person is using it.

Trust me

If someone really wanted to kill someone they would find other ways to do...you don't really need a gun to kill people...homemade bombs can be just as deadly

Also you can carry concealed weapons but that doesn't give you the right to carry them anywhere. You can't bring them into chruches and government buildings are schools. All the bill of rights says is that you have the right to bare arms, not the right to carry them anywhere you want

Why even bother to ban guns in schools when one can find many other ways to stage a massacre anyway?

Uh, people...I do believe this is satire...
Watch it turn into a heated debate by page 2 or 3.

Plutophobia, it appears you are a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment - as much as I support it too, I believe that individuals should make up their own minds as whether or not to arm themselves, rather than being forced to carry a firearm.

You seem to be confusing several things here. Not the least of which is a total misunderstanding of liberties, particularly firearm liberties, and socialization, and property right.

You can not socialize firearm ownership by making ownership compulsorily. Nor can you disregard property rights by forcing anyone with property to accept any old stranger to come on it regardless of what the owner may want. Whether they are armed or not has no bearing on point at hand.

Also, you falsely assume, and state, that returning our tyrannized government to its constitutional founding, would make things more dangerous.....

The interesting thing about shootings is that they perfectly demonstrate the failure of constitutional 2nd Amendment infringements. Schools are “gun free” zones, and yet that law has no bearing on criminals who commit crimes. Instead, it only disarms the law abiding citizen. That is why you see massacres like this happen. It is the same reason why states that have shall issue concealed carry laws have low crime compared to states that don’t allow for concealed carry, or have such stringent requirements as to make it practically non existent. It is the same reason why Washington DC is the murder capital of the country, and why England’s crime rate, especially for “hot burglaries” (when a criminal breaks into one’s home while the occupants are still instead) as risen 4 fold since complete gun confiscation.

If teachers were “allowed” (funny term since the government really has no constitutional authority for federal education, or firearms infringements) to carry/access weapons on school property, as well as at age students, you would see a drastic decline in school deaths even when a school shooting were attempted.

How come criminals don’t engage in gunstore shootings, or police headquarter shootings? It’s common sense, they go after the easy defenseless prey.

Also, it may interest you to know that before the 1930’s, ANY US citizen could own ANY piece of military hardware in existence. This included machine guns, artilary, tanks, and full fledged battleships. How come, if having an armed and free populace was so suicidal, did we not have any problems for that first 150+ years of out country’s founding? Why do we see more problems as we enact more unconstitutional measures?

Also, it may tickle your fancy to note that the greatest tyrants of all time were in favor of gun control. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and all those African and South African dictators wanted a disarmed populace before they enacted their tyranny. Why is that? Maybe Hitler really loved the jews after all?

I was wrong, by page 1....

Watch it turn into a heated debate by page 2 or 3.

As always.

But i'm blown away by the fact that people actually think he's being serious...

>.>

As always.

But i'm blown away by the fact that people actually think he's being serious...

>.>

...and you let these people have guns where you come from? :p
I think it was a pretty obvious satire. Oh well, just watch the show I guess.

I think it was a pretty obvious satire. Oh well, just watch the show I guess.

*grabs popcorn and beer* :D

HHAhaahahHAHHAA THIS iz PHUNYYTT LolololololorROFL¬!!!1

Hhshasha!!! WHEE!!1



No.

IT'S called SARCASM! He is making a point that people should not be allowed to own guns. Although I dissagree I think his point is rather funny and that so is your ignorance. I think that we should be allowed to buy combat weapons so that we, the people can go storm the bloody white house and end the presidents tyrrany once and for all.

IT'S called SARCASM! He is making a point that people should not be allowed to own guns. Although I dissagree I think his point is rather funny and that so is your ignorance. I think that we should be allowed to buy combat weapons so that we, the people can go storm the bloody white house and end the presidents tyrrany once and for all.
Oh fuck....do you know the kind of shit this will bring.

I'm too young to drink

*grabs popcorn and coke*

thats better

I'm too young to drink

*grabs popcorn and coke*

thats better

*gives you a bottle of beer and pulls out revolver*

-click-

I said drink it.

:D

B-52 bombers were useful to kill hundreds of thousands of people in World War II


um no, they werent around then

*gives you a bottle of beer and pulls out revolver*

-click-

I said drink it.

:D

*Plants a clay more*

I said let him go!

NOw to prevent myy life from being threatened i lined the whole world with c4 that is designed to blow up at any loud noise ha ha ha ha

*Plants a clay more*

I said let him go!

NOw to prevent myy life from being threatened i lined the whole world with c4 that is designed to blow up at any loud noise ha ha ha ha

Godmodder! *fires I.G.N.O.R.E cannon*

:p

*Plants a clay more*

I said let him go!

NOw to prevent myy life from being threatened i lined the whole world with c4 that is designed to blow up at any loud noise ha ha ha ha
Why not go Dr. Strangelove and build a doomsday device?

Gentlemen, gentlemen, no fighting in here - This is the war room!!

Gentlemen, gentlemen, no fighting in here - This is the war room!!

:D

Well, looks like we saved this thread. :p

HHAhaahahHAHHAA THIS iz PHUNYYTT LolololololorROFL¬!!!1

Hhshasha!!! WHEE!!1



No.

Exactly my thoughts, I couldn't have put it better.

:D

Well, looks like we saved this thread. :p
Hazzah!

While I love a good satire, I must say Plutophobia is completely wrong. And whoever made the longish post discrediting what they said (TheFreeState, I think it was), more power to you. :)

I agree with your views on California, but am saddened by your characterization of Texas.
Oh, right. Berkeley has a parade and it's okay to judge them. But Texans drag a black man from a pickup truck or try to form their own border police, and you are "saddened" by my characterization. Cry me a river. I think the Mexicans being raped by police, starving to death, having their organs stolen, or being tortured by the mafia are a lot more 'saddened' than you, because of Texas's image.

Nothing wrong with guns as long as a mature person is using it.
As soon as you've got the blood test or urinalysis for maturity (or sanity), sure, I'm all for it.

Plutophobia, it appears you are a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment - as much as I support it too, I believe that individuals should make up their own minds as whether or not to arm themselves, rather than being forced to carry a firearm.
Super-power, it appears you have an opinion - as much as I disagree with it, I believe that individuals should substantiate their comments with evidence, rather than just making meaningless statements.

Why not go Dr. Strangelove and build a doomsday device?
Just ask the libertarians on that. With allowing a free market and the right to own any military technology, they'd build a doomsday device if Microsoft or Wal-Mart paid them to.

You seem to be confusing several things here. Not the least of which is a total misunderstanding of liberties, particularly firearm liberties, and socialization, and property right.
Hello, CATO advocate. Grr.

You can not socialize firearm ownership by making ownership compulsorily.
No arguments here.

Nor can you disregard property rights by forcing anyone with property to accept any old stranger to come on it regardless of what the owner may want. Whether they are armed or not has no bearing on point at hand.
You aren't forcing anyone to accept any stranger to enter someone's property. In my opinion, you should be allowed to shoot anyone on your property, provided that they weren't invited there and you give them adequate warning, unless they're physically attacking you. And I'm not really as anti-gun as you'd think, as I'll explain later.


Also, you falsely assume, and state, that returning our tyrannized government to its constitutional founding, would make things more dangerous.....
No arguments here.

The interesting thing about shootings is that they perfectly demonstrate the failure of constitutional 2nd Amendment infringements. Schools are “gun free” zones, and yet that law has no bearing on criminals who commit crimes. Instead, it only disarms the law abiding citizen. That is why you see massacres like this happen. It is the same reason why states that have shall issue concealed carry laws have low crime compared to states that don’t allow for concealed carry, or have such stringent requirements as to make it practically non existent. It is the same reason why Washington DC is the murder capital of the country, and why England’s crime rate, especially for “hot burglaries” (when a criminal breaks into one’s home while the occupants are still instead) as risen 4 fold since complete gun confiscation.
I'd like to see the sources for your statistics on England. Because if crime is directly proportional to high amounts of gun control, then that means all countries with strict gun control have more crime and all countries with little or no gun control have less crime. That isn't true.

If teachers were “allowed” (funny term since the government really has no constitutional authority for federal education, or firearms infringements) to carry/access weapons on school property, as well as at age students, you would see a drastic decline in school deaths even when a school shooting were attempted.
There is no Constitutional amendment banning public education. Education should be privatized, I agree, to improve the system. But currently, public education is a government program and they have just full authority over what goes in that building. It's publicly-owned, not privately-owned. It's their right.

How come criminals don’t engage in gunstore shootings, or police headquarter shootings? It’s common sense, they go after the easy defenseless prey.
There was a man that tried to rob a gun store recently, to get a gun to save Terri Schiavo. Criminals rob banks. In my state, we did have problems with criminals trying to rob gunstores or people generally being unsafe, so they have laws which put mandatory trigger locks on guns. At Wal-Mart, when we sold guns, we weren't allowed to give ammunition to the customer while they were looking at a gun, we had to watch them carefully while they held the gun, and when they bought it, a manager would have to walk them out of the store. And you have to realize: Wal-Mart is an extremely Conservative company, which represents the pinnacle of the libertarian's "free market" dream. Surely, you must accept their credibility, as that last part was their policy and not actual law. Surely, as a business, they wouldn't do it unless it was actually necessary.

Also, it may interest you to know that before the 1930’s, ANY US citizen could own ANY piece of military hardware in existence. This included machine guns, artilary, tanks, and full fledged battleships. How come, if having an armed and free populace was so suicidal, did we not have any problems for that first 150+ years of out country’s founding? Why do we see more problems as we enact more unconstitutional measures?
Those were extremely different times. There weren't as many types of automatic weapons and they didn't have as much allure to society, as they do now. Our society's entertainment has a much greater focus on violence than it did in the 1930's. Plus, you downplay the issue. Guns were somewhat of a problem in the 20's. The mafia started buying tommy guns while the police only had pistols. As a result, "big government" needed to step in and increase the police's weaponry. Then, in 1997, when there was a horrible bank robbery in North Hollywood that killed 10 people (criminals were using AK-47s, wearing full, tactical armor--the stuff special forces wear, not just vests), "big government" had to step in and significantly increase funding to police SWAT teams as, before then, they'd mostly been used to control riots (since then were established because of a massive riot during the 60's--one where many people were also killed using guns ;)) From the event in North Hollywood, which was a tragedy equal to Columbine, you should be able to agree that armor-piercing bullets, full-tactical armor, tanks, or any advanced military technology should not be made available to the public. Weapons necessary for hunting, self-protection, or a relative number of popular weapons for target practice should be allowed. Beyond that, no.

Also, it may tickle your fancy to note that the greatest tyrants of all time were in favor of gun control. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and all those African and South African dictators wanted a disarmed populace before they enacted their tyranny. Why is that? Maybe Hitler really loved the jews after all?
That's illogical.

Evil people are pro gun-control
Liberals are pro gun-control
Therefore, liberals are evil? No.

That's a classic logical fallacy. It's often demonstrated as:

All humans have legs.
All chairs have legs.
Therefore, all humans are chairs.

Now that I've disputed your absolute nonsense, let me put forth several facts. Before I do that, though, let me just say that I fully agree the facts and statistics put forth by biased groups are generally flawed or meaningless. You can't assume the cause of a relationship between two things! Pro-gun advocates constantly put forth statistics showing that states with high crime also have strict gun control laws (as you've done here). What they don't tell you is that states which have sharp increases in crime tend to tighten gun control laws (see the U.N. study all the way at the bottom). On the other side of the issue, anti-gun advocates constantly talk about how many people are killed by guns, but they don't say whether or not gun control would have an impact on that.

Now, onto the facts:

One study often quoted, but unfortunately misinterpreted, by the NRA is a study done by the Center For Disease Control. The co-author of the study is anti-gun, but I haven't seen any evidence that the author or anyone else is. So, claims that they're biased are ridiculous. It's from a government agency.

Anyway, they found that the vast majority of gun laws did not have a consistent effect one way or the other. Now, that's an important word that's ignored by the NRA. Consistent effect. In some cases, gun laws have been shown to reduce crime, according to the CDC study. Most of their findings were inconsistent. In some cases, crime seemed to go up with tighter gun laws, in some cases, crime seemed to go down. So, both pro-gun and anti-gun advocates are wrong. This issue should not be decided Federally, but rather, because it seems there are so many factors involved. Therefore, a Federal "one-size-fits-all" law would not work. It would benefit some states and hurt others. It would be pointless, either way.

Summaries of the CDC's findings:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

The CDC's full report:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf

I'd also like you to take a look at the United States' relative firearm death rate, compared to other countries.

Firearms' Death Rate, per 100,000
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Why do we beat all those other countries? And it's a percentage, too. The point of this graph is just to show you: there are many more factors involved with with crime and mortality rates, from guns. What I mean is, all these countries have different gun laws, some more strict than ours, some more lenient, and yet we totally beat them all. Why? Clearly, it has to do with American culture and society, not anything that can be changed or dictated by law.

There was also a study by the U.N. which demonstrated the same ideas as above. Gun control's connection with crime is inconsistent. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. It's really hard to tell.

U.N. Study finds nothing conclusive:
http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf

However, I don't believe giving teachers guns is the answer and that was the real intent of my post--to demonstrate how wacko I percieve these libertarians and conservatives, who think our society should revert back to the Wild West. Giving teachers guns won't prevent shootings, because most of these kids were planning to die, before they got there. However, I do support having a small amount of armed security guards in schools, because I agree, it could still save lives. Plus, it would also create jobs. According to the CDC study, metal detectors in schools cut guns in schools in half. I don't know if that's LEGAL or ILLEGAL guns, but either way, it's a good idea. If a security guard was to watch the entrances on CCTV, especially when the alarm goes off, he could set off a schoolwide alarm that could give students and staff the chance to barricade themselves. But yes, giving schools security that's a lot closer to the same security government-buildings and airports have is the way we need to go. If giving civilians guns is a way to prevent murder, then you should demand that Conservative politicians allow guns on airplanes, as well as any government-buildings. They won't, though, of course. No politicians will. Because it's ridiculous.

And lastly, I believe the major thing that needs to be done is prevent these school shootings. Nothing that's been listed above can do that. My first impression is to ask that they increase the quality and funding of guidance counselors, but I don't know if emotional problems are the main cause. Many politicians use these events as springboards for censorship, guns, etc, but what really needs to be done is research into the true cause of these school shootings. We can make assumptions, but that's all they really are--assumptions. There's no guarantee, so far, that putting guns in school wouldn't just turn them into a war zone. These kids shoot others because they're out for a sick thrill. Giving teachers guns might just add to that sadistic feeling of suspense and power.

Actually, Arizona's forming its own border police, not Texas. It starts in a week, btw.

Texas sure does take a lot of flak, though - most of it unfounded.

Guns yes. Hand grenades no, they are too dangerous.
That's the argument those evil libruls use against guns!

I agree with your views on California
What? You seem serious.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: I'd sell my Flintstones vitamins for free guns :gundge:

Dudes, get over it. America is a culture that has guns intricately woven into it's fabric. The right to bear arms has a long history here, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Guns serve a role. They serve a useful role. They are used as tools by farmers and folks. They stop about two million crimes a year, just by being brandished at criminals. Accidental gun deaths are in the hundreds. They are not the arch-evil, nor are they instruments of god. They're just tools. Chill out.

Beyond that, this is the same issue as the Patriot act. Banning guns is a security before liberty arguement. Just like the patriot act. Folks, both sides are hypocritical about this sort of thing. It's a ludicrous arguement in my opinion. Thank you all and have a nice day.

That's the argument those evil libruls use against guns!


What? You seem serious.

Yeah, we could do without the great state of California. I would rescue a few select people from there before we destroyed the state, of course. Some of my classmates from high school apparently moved out there... plus we'd have to warn Schwarzenegger so he wouldn't get caught there.

Firearms' Death Rate, per 100,000
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html


Woohoo! USA! USA! USA! [/homer]

But i'm blown away by the fact that people actually think he's being serious...
I mean, you even stated that it was satire within the first few posts. And people don't even bother to read the thread before replying...

I mean, you even stated that it was satire within the first few posts. And people don't even bother to read the thread before replying...

Maybe some people have just been convinced or told that the NRA actually stands for or would say that kind of thing? It's possible.

. Our society's entertainment has a much greater focus on violence than it did in the 1930's. Plus, you downplay the issue. Guns were somewhat of a problem in the 20's. The mafia started buying tommy guns while the police only had pistols. As a result, "big government" needed to step in and increase the police's weaponry.
And why the rise of mafia gangs? Prohibition, the banning of a substance for no other reason than the government thinks it's bad for you. What other situation do we have today that is the EXACT same type of situation, except that the objects being illegally transported are much smaller than barrels of alcohol were? The War on Drugs. Incidentally enough there is a major gang problem. What a surprise. Also interesting to note is that the vast majority of people in these gangs don't buy their weapons.

Yeah, we could do without the great state of California. I would rescue a few select people from there before we destroyed the state, of course. Some of my classmates from high school apparently moved out there... plus we'd have to warn Schwarzenegger so he wouldn't get caught there.
You are weird, possibly even weirder than Californians. What's so bad about them? I imagine that the US would go through quite a few economic problems without their richest state.

If giving civilians guns is a way to prevent murder, then you should demand that Conservative politicians allow guns on airplanes, as well as any government-buildings. They won't, though, of course. No politicians will. Because it's ridiculous.
Actually, airlines are private businesses so it would be up to said airlines to allow the guns. Which you shouldn't. Rather, you should mandate that the pilots regularly train with handguns and give them the guns. That and stronger doors to the cabin.

And why the rise of mafia gangs? Prohibition, the banning of a substance for no other reason than the government thinks it's bad for you. What other situation do we have today that is the EXACT same type of situation, except that the objects being illegally transported are much smaller than barrels of alcohol were? The War on Drugs. Incidentally enough there is a major gang problem. What a surprise. Also interesting to note is that the vast majority of people in these gangs don't buy their weapons.

EXACTLY! and that is exactly why Andaluciae "profound" statement about the need of guns simply and factually is not true. A farmer needs a gun for what? For it to be stolen and used to rob someone else's house? Or to shoot at anyone that tresspasses? God how can people be so close minded GUNS WERE MADE TO KILL QUICK THEY HAVE NO OTHER PURPOSE. The majority of people in America don't even own nor have any wish to own guns, and those that do REALLY shouldn't own them. And when will people begin to understand that just because there is a way things are done that it doesn't mean that it is the right way. We need change in our country, in this is just one of the cultural things in the U.S. that is innately WRONG.

B-52's were not used in ww2, devalidating your entire argument.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: yeh..........i like beans... :sniper: :mp5: and guns

Dudes, get over it. America is a culture that has guns intricately woven into it's fabric. The right to bear arms has a long history here, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Guns serve a role. They serve a useful role. They are used as tools by farmers and folks. They stop about two million crimes a year, just by being brandished at criminals. Accidental gun deaths are in the hundreds. They are not the arch-evil, nor are they instruments of god. They're just tools. Chill out.

Beyond that, this is the same issue as the Patriot act. Banning guns is a security before liberty arguement. Just like the patriot act. Folks, both sides are hypocritical about this sort of thing. It's a ludicrous arguement in my opinion. Thank you all and have a nice day.

I'm choking at the contradictions!

:D I absolutely love how this thread has revealed peoples biases, their ignorance, their inability to deliver a logical argument.

Just because *accidents* have happened throughout history doesn't mean they're *ok* and *just* a part of history (que sera, sera, my ass).

I love humor. Plutophobia, you're allll right, you little satirist, you.

EXACTLY! and that is exactly why Andaluciae "profound" statement about the need of guns simply and factually is not true.
Not really, would you buy a normal car without seatbelts today? A gun is simply an effective precaution of protecting oneself, even if you never need to. The point is in order to reduce the violence in the country we need to eliminate the root of the problem, which is certainly not guns.

Just because *accidents* have happened throughout history doesn't mean they're *ok* and *just* a part of history (que sera, sera, my ass).
Then I guess we need to ban both private and public pools, since one hell of a lot more people drown then accidentally get shot.

B-52's were not used in ww2, devalidating your entire argument.
*World War II and a half. Sorry, typo.

Woohoo! USA! USA! USA! [/homer]
Isn't it sad when we have a greater percentage of firearms' deaths in America than in Israel, which is at war right now?! I don't think the Federal government should have much of a say in gun control, but I still think those statistics are disturbing.

And why the rise of mafia gangs? Prohibition, the banning of a substance for no other reason than the government thinks it's bad for you. What other situation do we have today that is the EXACT same type of situation, except that the objects being illegally transported are much smaller than barrels of alcohol were? The War on Drugs. Incidentally enough there is a major gang problem. What a surprise. Also interesting to note is that the vast majority of people in these gangs don't buy their weapons.
Alcohol was interwoven into our culture just as guns are. However, while most people would buy illegal alcohol or weed, the average person won't go buy rocket launchers off the blackmarket or freebase heroin.

Your anarchist\libertarian logic is poorly constructed. We've banned private ownership of tanks, but you don't see people trading them on the black market. Your analogy is horrible. Yes, the war on drugs is not working for the reason you mentioned, but that's also only because many drugs are immensely popular, already widely used and distributed, easily-accessible, and popularized by the media. But there's never been an outright ban on guns and most people would not even suggest that.

And despite the NRA's claims, not every patriotic American wants to have enough weaponry to equip their own private army. But on the other hand, their opponents are incorrect too. There is a second amendment right, which does need to be limited, but in some ways, I'm sure it is too far, although not "unconstitutional." It's the right to bear arms, not all arms, not good arms, and not without limitation. There's no quantifier there. It just says "arms." And Congress has always been given the right to place reasonable limits on the Constitution, such as being civilly liable for "slander" and "libel", despite freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Also, you have the right to organize protests and meetings, but if you're doing it in public, you have to apply for a permit a long time in advance, or else you'l face heavy fines and limitations. Congress has always had this right. You still can bear arms, just not all of them or without limitation.

Actually, airlines are private businesses so it would be up to said airlines to allow the guns. Which you shouldn't. Rather, you should mandate that the pilots regularly train with handguns and give them the guns. That and stronger doors to the cabin.
Okay, so let me understand this. It's your right to bear arms, in the Constitution. So.. Corporations can take away that right for any reason, but the government can't even limit it for a possibly good reason?!

Nothing wrong with guns as long as a mature person is using it.

Trust me

Even if I did trust you (and since I don't know you... no) what difference would it make? Last time I checked passing a "maturity test" wasn't a requirement of purchasing a gun so why would your statement make anyone feel better about the general population being allowed to buy them?

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Oh n o man your fucking nuts man you hear me nuts!
You dont give little kids hand guns, no kid should go even near a fire arm without adult supervision until they have at least reached the age of12.
Stop smoking and start thinking.

Oh n o man your fucking nuts man you hear me nuts!
You dont give little kids hand guns, no kid should go even near a fire arm without adult supervision until they have at least reached the age of12.
Stop smoking and start thinking.

Do you not have the ability to recognize satire?

Not really, would you buy a normal car without seatbelts today? A gun is simply an effective precaution of protecting oneself, even if you never need to. The point is in order to reduce the violence in the country we need to eliminate the root of the problem, which is certainly not guns.

First off I wanted to thank you for not getting all offensive and contrary and that jazz. But I also wanted to have a little rebuttle to your statement ;). If none of the populace had guns then why would you need to have guns to protect yourself then? You could just keep a baseball bat in your room (or in my case I have a dirk from Germany) and be even safer because there wouldn't be someone that could use a gun on you.

[QUOTE=Isanyonehome]Do you not have the ability to recognize satire?[/QUOTE}

...Seriously...

*World War II and a half. Sorry, typo.

Or rather, you just dont know anything whatsoever. I vote for that.

Firearms' Death Rate, per 100,000
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif


Any idea what percentage are suicides? I know that over 75% of gun deaths in NZ and people turning them on themselves (which says more about our suicide rate than our inability to handle guns) but I'd be interested to know how that compares to other places, and whether that increases our gun death rate.

First off I wanted to thank you for not getting all offensive and contrary and that jazz. But I also wanted to have a little rebuttle to your statement ;). If none of the populace had guns then why would you need to have guns to protect yourself then? You could just keep a baseball bat in your room (or in my case I have a dirk from Germany) and be even safer because there wouldn't be someone that could use a gun on you.

Yes, and communism would be perfect if everyone worked together for a collective good, without greed. Sadly, neither of those will ever happen, or at least not in our lifetimes. The answer isnt to deny civilians guns, its to try to promote better social conditions to the point where less and less people must resort to weapons.

Woohoo! USA! USA! USA! [/homer]

LOL!

I mean, you even stated that it was satire within the first few posts. And people don't even bother to read the thread before replying...

Heh. Well, I tried... :p

Firearms' Death Rate, per 100,000
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Holy shit!!!

Holy shit!!!

Scotland's higher than I thought eh.

I really doubt how many violent crimes guns stop. Certainly not as many as they enable people to committ.

I really don't have any problem with most people owning guns- especially, as mentioned before, kids who grow up in rural areas from an early age with a healthy respect for their power.

But its that 1% I worry about.

This is a little radical but what i really think needs to happen in America is for anything bigger then a pistol to be outlawed. You can certainly defend yourself with a pistol from pretty much anything the average citizen will run into. Hunters- I'm sorry, but your sport isn't worth the thousands that die each year from rifle/shotgun related deaths and accidents.

If you really want to hunt, get a bow.

I just dont see the justification behind owning a shotgun that can punch through walls or a rifle that can kill targets hundreds of feet away.

A legally bought weapon killed JFK. He couldn't have been done in if Americans weren’t allowed to own rifles.

The Sniper shootings a few years back couldnt have happened if this law was in place. Neither could columbine. Or jonesboro. Or Minnesota. Or the hunter shootings with the Cambodian guy. Someone armed with a pistol could not have achieved nearly the amount of death these guys did.

Guns, especially big ones, fascinate me. I love the feel of that thump against your arm as the weapon recoils. I'm pretty sure I could trust myself with a gun, as I could just as easily trust those who have real respect for the weapons. But if everyone's allowed to have one, sooner or later theres gonna be death. Death that could be easily prevented. For now, I support having handguns for self defense purposes. But anything bigger then that, even in the name of “sport” is too much.

And as for the now-ceased ban on assault weapons….. good god. Who in the hell needs a friggin Uzi?

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Counterpoints? Good jokes?

Do you not have the ability to recognize satire?
Oh yeah harharhar, kids with guns so funny, sorry.

I have successfully defended myself during attempted robberies using my pistol.
There are many women that I have trained with handguns who now are free from the harassment of the men who used to stalk and beat them.

Taught several men, including a handicapped man in a wheelchair, how to shoot. He is no longer victimized, as he was before.

Small point: giving someone a pistol doesn't make them a shooter any more than buying a piano makes you a concert pianist. They have to train and they have to be willing to kill.

First off I wanted to thank you for not getting all offensive and contrary and that jazz. But I also wanted to have a little rebuttle to your statement ;). If none of the populace had guns then why would you need to have guns to protect yourself then? You could just keep a baseball bat in your room (or in my case I have a dirk from Germany) and be even safer because there wouldn't be someone that could use a gun on you.
5' nothing woman weighing 120 lbs with a bat against a 6'2" 220 lbs male who sees the bat. Who would you think wins?

5' nothing woman weighing 120 lbs with a bat against a 6'2" 220 lbs male who sees the bat. Who would you think wins?

But hoplophobes would rather believe that no violent crime is committed w/o a gun and that a violent crime couldn't happen if the criminal didn't have one. What a wonderful world they live in. I wonder what the color of the sky is there?

First off I wanted to thank you for not getting all offensive and contrary and that jazz. But I also wanted to have a little rebuttle to your statement ;). If none of the populace had guns then why would you need to have guns to protect yourself then? You could just keep a baseball bat in your room (or in my case I have a dirk from Germany) and be even safer because there wouldn't be someone that could use a gun on you.

That's not true here in the US. 76 percent of all violent crime is committed using no weapon of any kind. 24 percent are committed using a weapon (not just firearms - knives, bats, etc).

So the vast majority of the time, someone is bigger and stronger and more aggressive than the other person.

I train victims of domestic abuse to carry firearms. That's because they are victimized and stalked by men who do not care if they have a baseball bat or a knife. But they do care very much that the woman has a gun, and they stay very, very far away.

They are much safer than the women who rely on the police and a protective order. Those women are being killed on a regular basis. None of the women I have trained has experienced a single repeat event, and are now leading happier lives.

And as for the now-ceased ban on assault weapons….. good god. Who in the hell needs a friggin Uzi?.... First of all, the proper name of what you're referring to is the Semi-Automatic Weapons ban. Automatic weapons have been illegal in the US without a Class III license since 1938. It was dubbed with the moniker Assualt Weapons Ban because it's proponents knew that semi-auto ban wasn't nearly scary enough to get the general public behind it. It really didn't do anything important except limit the number of superficial add-ons that could be sold with a gun. It also "stopped" the production of certain guns but the designs were just modified a bit and they were sold under different names. It also didn't stop the sales of such weapons made before it went into effect. Also, had the DC sniper had a proper deer-hunting rifle most if not all of his victims would be dead. Instead upwards of 50% survived.

.... First of all, the proper name of what you're referring to is the Semi-Automatic Weapons ban. Automatic weapons have been illegal in the US without a Class III license since 1938. It was dubbed with the moniker Assault Weapons Ban because it's proponents knew that semi-auto ban wasn't nearly scary enough to get the general public behind it. It really didn't do anything important except limit the number of superficial add-ons that could be sold with a gun. It also "stopped" the production of certain guns but the designs were just modified a bit and they were sold under different names.

I am given to understand that if an American citizen has a class III license, he can own a minigun providing he can afford it. Very expensive, but somewhat frightening to consider the kind of firepower that becomes available to anyone with enough money and the drive to get it.

Handguns may be one thing, but miniguns?

I am given to understand that if an American citizen has a class III license, he can own a gattling gun providing he can afford it. Very expensive, but somewhat frightening to consider the kind of firepower that becomes available to anyone with enough money and the drive to get it.

Handguns may be one thing, but gattling guns?

Only in 35 states.

I'll let you in on a secret.

Since 1934, the time when the National Firearms Act was passed, which restricted machineguns and silencers and provided for the Class III licenses, over 200,000 weapons have been registered.

None - not one - has ever been used in the commission of a crime. It's something that both the NRA and the ATF are proud of.

Compare that to police firearms and even FBI firearms which have been used in the commission of a crime.

Any machinegun or silencer you have ever heard of being used in a crime came from either an illegally manufactured firearm, or a smuggled weapon. Not from a NFA registered firearm owner.

I am given to understand that if an American citizen has a class III license, he can own a gattling gun providing he can afford it. Very expensive, but somewhat frightening to consider the kind of firepower that becomes available to anyone with enough money and the drive to get it.

Handguns may be one thing, but gattling guns?

You're forgetting about the background checks they do before you get a Class III. It's a lot more indepth than NICS. You don't just find those in your neighborhood gun shop.

You're forgetting about the background checks they do before you get a Class III. It's a lot more indepth than NICS. You don't just find those in your neighborhood gun shop.


I think that a lot of anti-gun people have astounding misconceptions about the nature of gun ownership in America. What kinds are available, and what it takes to get one. And their perception of past laws is really skewed - they have little or no idea what the laws actually controlled (or didn't control).

I think that a lot of anti-gun people have astounding misconceptions about the nature of gun ownership in America. What kinds are available, and what it takes to get one. And their perception of past laws is really skewed - they have little or no idea what the laws actually controlled (or didn't control).

Media reports of "machine guns" being used in "massacres", rigged news articles, and sensationalism help feed those misconceptions. Groups like HCI and the MMM also regularly misrepresent (ie lie) about guns and the laws. How often do you hear on the news of someone stopping a crime or defending themselves w/ a gun? Not very often. Why? It isn't as interesting.

But of course, that's what the Anti-rights groups want.

Well I suppose that in the case of such a large weapon, the primary reason why its not used for criminal activities is the sheer awkwardness of actually perpetrating said activity with it. It would be blatantly obvious if you were to carry such a weapon with you anywhere outside of your house.

In this way, the bigger weapon argument is rendered a bit moot. People don't use such weapons to commit crimes because it is simply too difficult to conceal or use in a hurry. Although I will admit I have yet to find a place to fit in cases of rifles/shotguns/assault rifles/etc, being used in criminal activities. Perhaps because it is the most convenient weapon at hand or because the criminal is attempting to balance firepower/range with convenience? Ah well, does anyone have a breakdown on firearm crimes based on the type? If I am not mistaken, the majority of them would most likely involve handguns.

Although the fact that you give up quite a few privacy rights for a class III license may also have to do with the fact that it is not used for committing crimes.

Well I suppose that in the case of such a large weapon, the primary reason why its not used for criminal activities is the sheer awkwardness of actually perpetrating said activity with it. It would be blatantly obvious if you were to carry such a weapon with you anywhere outside of your house.

In this way, the bigger weapon argument is rendered a bit moot. People don't use such weapons to commit crimes because it is simply too difficult to conceal or use in a hurry. Although I will admit I have yet to find a place to fit in cases of rifles/shotguns/assault rifles/etc, being used in criminal activities. Perhaps because it is the most convenient weapon at hand or because the criminal is attempting to balance firepower/range with convenience? Ah well, does anyone have a breakdown on firearm crimes based on the type? If I am not mistaken, the majority of them would most likely involve handguns.

Although the fact that you give up quite a few privacy rights for a class III license may also have to do with the fact that it is not used for committing crimes.


Assault weapons generally come in around 1 percent of total gun crime (if you consider an assault weapon to be a longarm, which it traditionally is - if you're an anti-gunner, you'll include all pistols in this category, and the percentage will skew).

Rifles and shotguns comprise a minority of firearm crime.

But a lot of Class III items are submachineguns and pistol silencers. Very concealable, and in the case of silencers, very quiet. And no crimes have been committed with the registered items.

There are 300 million legally owned guns in active civilian use in the US, amongst some 80 million legal gun owners. There are roughly 2 million violent crimes per year, and 76 percent of those are committed with NO weapon of ANY kind. The remaining 24 percent are a mix of guns, knives, and other weapons - not just firearms.

Legal gun owners are not usually the criminal. In interviews, 84 percent of felons say they get their guns by theft or smuggling. It's interesting to note that no Class III weapon has been stolen - unlike police guns and FBI submachineguns that have been stolen and used in crimes.

Well I suppose that in the case of such a large weapon, the primary reason why its not used for criminal activities is the sheer awkwardness of actually perpetrating said activity with it. It would be blatantly obvious if you were to carry such a weapon with you anywhere outside of your house.

In this way, the bigger weapon argument is rendered a bit moot. People don't use such weapons to commit crimes because it is simply too difficult to conceal or use in a hurry. Although I will admit I have yet to find a place to fit in cases of rifles/shotguns/assault rifles/etc, being used in criminal activities. Perhaps because it is the most convenient weapon at hand or because the criminal is attempting to balance firepower/range with convenience? Ah well, does anyone have a breakdown on firearm crimes based on the type? If I am not mistaken, the majority of them would most likely involve handguns.

Although the fact that you give up quite a few privacy rights for a class III license may also have to do with the fact that it is not used for committing crimes.


Over 80% of firearms (majority handguns, yes) used in crime were obtained illegally by already existing laws.
Mostly they're used for concealability. Only a couple of states have (no license) carry laws, their crime is remarkably low. Most of the states have licensed C/CC laws of varying degrees or none at all.

If you mean longarm as in rifle/shotgun class as an assault weapon, then we are in agreement.

As to the crimes being committed with smuggled or stolen weapons, that is only logical sense. If you are going to commit a crime, will you use your car as a getaway vehicle if it was legally registered to you? You might, but only if you didn't have anything resembling common sense. Ergo, the stolen/smuggled weapons being used for nefarious purposes since they afford a small amount of protection simply by not being registered and traceable under conventional means. Presumably, there is also less fuss attaining one assuming you knew the right people.

Crimes committed in the heat of the moment might be something else however in regards to the use of licensed weapons. i.e. road rage, etc.

Myself, I plan on getting a small handgun soon, my city is gettin too dangerous, Im sure I wont have to use it, the mere sight should stop most attackers, but if they keep comin sigh.

ban guns because gun control makes gun crime go away :rolleyes:

ban guns because gun control makes gun crime go away :rolleyes:

lol every adult should be allowed to have one and carry it in public, if the gangs and scum in general can get them on the black market, then we should have them as well. What right has a government got, to place its own citizens, the taxpayers that pay their salary in unprotected danger.
A complete overhaul of our justice system needs to be implemented as soon as possible too, its fucked!
Last week a gang of scumbags were sentenced for ramming a social workers head into a telegrath pole two years ago, and killing him, the fukwit of a judge, Judge Smith, gave them only two to four years, as they expressed their remorse sufficently for him, and he believed they didnt intend on killinhg him. What a fuking joke!
Who cares what they intended, the point is they did kill him, and they should have been given at least twenty years, no parole.
If that man had been allowed to arm himself, to defend his own life, as should be his right, he might still be alive now!

People should have all the guns, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. that they want. But only I should have the ammunition.

People should have all the guns, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. that they want. But only I should have the ammunition.

Ever hear of reloading? You can make ammunition.

I believe it would be extremely difficult for your average American citizen to produce guided missiles, large calibre tank shells and the more advanced munitions. Machining small calibre ammunition for hand guns, rifles and shotguns would be simpler I believe. Although that would mean you know where to acquire, or have to knowhow to produce smokeless powder.

Ever hear of reloading? You can make ammunition.
It was a joke. Shut up.

I believe it would be extremely difficult for your average American citizen to produce guided missiles, large calibre tank shells and the more advanced munitions. Machining small calibre ammunition for hand guns, rifles and shotguns would be simpler I believe. Although that would mean you know where to acquire, or have to knowhow to produce smokeless powder.

Guided missiles are quite easy and cheap to make. You could do it for about $2K.

Any decent machine shop could produce any size shell you need, from large calibre to pistol rounds.

Smokeless powder is also not hard to make or acquire w/ a little ingenuity.

It was a joke. Shut up.

Not a very good one and no.

People should have all the guns, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. that they want. But only I should have the ammunition.

Ill just hit you in the face with my pistol butt, then take all the ammo off you, not so smart now are ya!

Ill just hit you in the face with my pistol butt, then take all the ammo off you, not so smart now are ya!

I think he was planning on having some of that ammo loaded into weapons.

I think he was planning on having some of that ammo loaded into weapons.
He's gotta sleep sometime :cool:

He's gotta sleep sometime :cool:

Or we could run him over w/ a tank. :)

Got any more popcorn, Kanabia? I might start throwing it.

Got any more popcorn, Kanabia? I might start throwing it.

Then it would be considered ammunition and you'ld have to give it to Pongoar.

man you are one serious wackjob in need of a LOT of help... giving guns to 5 year olds... they'd have everyone shot in no time because a 5 year old lacks the ability to control a gun.. and also Handgrenades.. i doubt you'd even know how to use a hand grenade... do i think guns should be taken away... NO but i do believe we should give them to little kids... NO do i think that the currents laws are fine... Yes is it an infringment upon your constitutional right to not be able to walk into the whitehouse with a gun? NO not at all its protecting the President and this nation as a whole... what do i suggest? i suggest you check yourself into a mental institution or something... because your ideals are clearly in need of alot of help... i wouldnt trust my 10 year old sister with a gun let alone a 5 year old kid.. thats insane talk

Anyone else feel like it's groundhog day?

Anyone else feel like it's groundhog day?

Every day is Groundhog Day.

Anyone else feel like it's groundhog day?

But Bill was eventually able to get out. This will go on forever.

man you are one serious wackjob in need of a LOT of help... giving guns to 5 year olds... they'd have everyone shot in no time because a 5 year old lacks the ability to control a gun.. and also Handgrenades.. i doubt you'd even know how to use a hand grenade... do i think guns should be taken away... NO but i do believe we should give them to little kids... NO do i think that the currents laws are fine... Yes is it an infringment upon your constitutional right to not be able to walk into the whitehouse with a gun? NO not at all its protecting the President and this nation as a whole... what do i suggest? i suggest you check yourself into a mental institution or something... because your ideals are clearly in need of alot of help... i wouldnt trust my 10 year old sister with a gun let alone a 5 year old kid.. thats insane talk

Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

But Bill was eventually able to get out. This will go on forever.
That's because there will always be someone who wants to take my gun away, and they won't be able to.

I cant read every page of this because I'm lazy, but did anyone blame President Bush for arming 5 yrs olds yet?

In light of the NRA's recent statements, I have changed my stance on protecting American students. It's important that they remain safe from harm, because it's a dangerous world out there. And sometimes, the only way to make an area safe, is to make it more dangerous.

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, the last I thing I have to propose is that each state form its own militia of civilian citizens, to fight off terrorists, if those damn redcoats come here and try to make us pay taxes without representation. And since the U.S. has about 10 thousand nuclear weapons (more than any other country in the world---BITCHES!!), that number should be divided by 50, giving each state milita its fair share of the weaponry, except for California. They are homosexual, anti-American, war-protesting Communists, and will recieve nothing. California will hereby no longer by a member of the United States, but a rogue nation which must be invaded, with its population thrown into torturous prisons, without trial or dignity. Texas, however, will recieve a double portion of the nuclear weapons, due to their need to bravely kill off starving, unarmed Mexicans from crossing the border. Thank you for your time.

Indeed. Finally someone has spoken. But I say we go further. Since the all-knowing Founding Fathers were nice enough to let me play with my guns, and Bush was nice enough not to reenable the Brady bill, I can go around with my assault weapons. I say, we install a CIWIS (close in weapons system, for you ignorant f*cktards who are against weapons) on every rooftop in America.

But that brings up another issue. What good is a depleted urantium-shooting highspeed machine gun against, say, an M-1 Abrams tank? The CIWIS is good, but not that good. We need to bury at least 10 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles in every backyard and in grids of 5 yards by 5 yards in metropolitain areas.

But what if Joe down the street runs into your house with a M-2 Bradley assault peresonnel carrier while you and your CIWIS are asleep? We need to enact a "revenge x 2" policy; it would allow you to launch a tactical nuclear missile at Joe's house. If Joe's house is already destroyed by your friend Bill across the street (are you sure Bill's your friend, or does he have some sweet revenge of his own planned?), use the nuke on Joe's parents' or next-of-kin's house, or heck, wherever you feel like launching it, as long as you deem Joe will suffer.

Also, abolish all "murder" laws. Instead, reward the killer for "eliminating a possible terrorist threat" and place upon the recipient's chest a gold star that signifies being a true patriot. You saw how Mel Gibson hacked up that redcoat in "The Patriot," do some hacking of bodies yourself!

This way, everyone is safe!

Indeed. Finally someone has spoken. But I say we go further. Since the all-knowing Founding Fathers were nice enough to let me play with my guns, and Bush was nice enough not to reenable the Brady bill, I can go around with my assault weapons. I say, we install a CIWIS (close in weapons system, for you ignorant f*cktards who are against weapons) on every rooftop in America.

But that brings up another issue. What good is a depleted urantium-shooting highspeed machine gun against, say, an M-1 Abrams tank? The CIWIS is good, but not that good. We need to bury at least 10 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles in every backyard and in grids of 5 yards by 5 yards in metropolitain areas.

But what if Joe down the street runs into your house with a M-2 Bradley assault peresonnel carrier while you and your CIWIS are asleep? We need to enact a "revenge x 2" policy; it would allow you to launch a tactical nuclear missile at Joe's house. If Joe's house is already destroyed by your friend Bill across the street (are you sure Bill's your friend, or does he have some sweet revenge of his own planned?), use the nuke on Joe's parents' or next-of-kin's house, or heck, wherever you feel like launching it, as long as you deem Joe will suffer.

Also, abolish all "murder" laws. Instead, reward the killer for "eliminating a possible terrorist threat" and place upon the recipient's chest a gold star that signifies being a true patriot. You saw how Mel Gibson hacked up that redcoat in "The Patriot," do some hacking of bodies yourself!

This way, everyone is safe!
And the collective IQ of everyone reading this thread just dropped by 20 points.

And the collective IQ of everyone reading this thread just dropped by 20 points.

lolz omg

But that brings up another issue. What good is a depleted urantium-shooting highspeed machine gun against, say, an M-1 Abrams tank?

Um, doesn't the A-10 have a depleted uranium, highspeed gatling that shoots through tanks? :D :eek: <ducks>

Um, doesn't the A-10 have a depleted uranium, highspeed gatling that shoots through tanks? :D :eek: <ducks>

The only problem with that is that the A-10 is attacking from above, where the armor is among the thinnest. You'd get the same result dropping a 500 pound bomb on it too. A burned out wreck.

A CIWS platform is usually mounted on a platform and would probably be set either too high to engage the tank (I believe they were orginally AAA platforms), or it would only be able to hit the frontal/side/rear armor, which would defeat small calibre armor piercing rounds.

Truthfully, if you want to take out a tank, use mines, anti-tank missiles (preferably man-portable), or another tank. Large calibre gun emplacements are just sitting ducks.

Pah! The right to bear arms dates back to a time when a standing army was considered bad and unnecessary. In times of armed conflict, militias were the choice at hand (and they're just privately armed civilians!).

George Washington did not disband the army after the Revolutionary War without a reason!

The right to bear arms has been of practical need in those times - it is definitely outdated today!

(Edit: I bet that the German Leopard 2A6 can kick every other tank's ass!)

All the bill of rights says is that you have the right to bare arms

I'd just like to point out that the right to "bare" arms means you have the undeniable constitutional right to sleeveless vests. Which I'd suggest most of the gun owners wear anyway. On days when they dress up.

I'd just like to point out that the right to "bare" arms means you have the undeniable constitutional right to sleeveless vests. Which I'd suggest most of the gun owners wear anyway. On days when they dress up.

OMG that is funny!

I just dont see the justification behind owning a shotgun that can punch through walls or a rifle that can kill targets hundreds of feet away.


Questions? Comments? Concerns? Counterpoints? Good jokes?


Yeah, actually there is more of a chance that a bullet from a handgun will punch through a wall than pellets from a shotgun. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense that there is specifically because there is less likelihood of missing the person who is in your home illegally and the bullet going through the wall and hitting a family member. Besides that merely hearing the sound of a pump shotgun being racked is enough to send most people running when they are the intended target.

Yeah, actually there is more of a chance that a bullet from a handgun will punch through a wall than pellets from a shotgun. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense that there is specifically because there is less likelihood of missing the person who is in your home illegally and the bullet going through the wall and hitting a family member. Besides that merely hearing the sound of a pump shotgun being racked is enough to send most people running when they are the intended target.

Statistically speaking, at home defense ranges, the shot pattern doesn't spread enough to raise the odds of hitting the target. Also, you don't want to make any sound before you open fire, because that gives the potential target time to shoot first.

Gun use in self-defense is going to occur with the assailant within ten feet, anything further away and it's going to be hard to call it self-defense.


I want someone who comes into my home to know that I am armed and that I have just made myself ready to defend myself. I would much rather have them leave than to sneak up on them and kill them. On top of that I'm not going to be standing in the middle of the room or the hall making a target of myself when I do rack the slide on the shotgun.

In NC it's against the law to use deadly force after someone is in your house unless you have a reasonable cause to believe that they intend to cause you physical harm. On the other hand if you catch someone attempting to break into your house use of deadly force to prevent the entry is legal.

Gun use in self-defense is going to occur with the assailant within ten feet, anything further away and it's going to be hard to call it self-defense.

I want someone who comes into my home to know that I am armed and that I have just made myself ready to defend myself. I would much rather have them leave than to sneak up on them and kill them. On top of that I'm not going to be standing in the middle of the room or the hall making a target of myself when I do rack the slide on the shotgun.

In NC it's against the law to use deadly force after someone is in your house unless you have a reasonable cause to believe that they intend to cause you physical harm. On the other hand if you catch someone attempting to break into your house use of deadly force to prevent the entry is legal.

Here in Virginia, if you have served the other person with a No Trespassing warrant, or they are the subject of a protective order or restraining order, and they step onto your property, you can open fire immediately.

You don't have to retreat in any case. You do not have to shout a warning. But that's Virginia.

In light of the NRA's recent statements, I have changed my stance on protecting American students. It's important that they remain safe from harm, because it's a dangerous world out there. And sometimes, the only way to make an area safe, is to make it more dangerous.

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The NRA says that our schools would be safer if civilians are armed with guns inside our schools, and that everyone has the right to bear arms. In my opinion, government buildings are no different. The fact that I can't walk into the Pentagon with a rocket launcher or drive a tank on the front lawn of the White House is an infringement upon my second amendment rights. Southerners shouldn't have to have ugly gun racks in their pickup trucks. Fully-mountable submachine guns should be legal.

Furthermore, I propose that instead of children being driven in school buses, that instead, every right-wing nutjob, hick, biblethumper, sheepfucker, and Klan member (as well as all the liberals) be issued state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets, with laser-guided, pinpoint accuracy and a take-off weight and carrying capacity of around 500 kilotons, ensuring that it can carry enough weaponry to carpetbomb at least several major cities, before having to resupply.

And yes, definitely an F-16. B-52 bombers were useful to kill hundreds of thousands of people in World War II, but no, they're not a powerful enough machine to protect the American people. And allowing Americans to own B-52 bombers, but not F-16s is an infringement upon my right to bear arms.

Lastly, it should be stated that "nuclear proliferation" is a misnomer. It is an outright lie started by John Kerry, to terrify us. The truth is that the spreading of nuclear weapons makes us safe. For example, you might not realize this, but America is currently giving Pakistan support for their nuclear weapons program, so that we can keep our own American troops there and keep it secure. If we didn't, oh, they'd totally try to fuck us over. Diplomacy or asking them to disarm is fucking stupid.

So, the last I thing I have to propose is that each state form its own militia of civilian citizens, to fight off terrorists, if those damn redcoats come here and try to make us pay taxes without representation. And since the U.S. has about 10 thousand nuclear weapons (more than any other country in the world---BITCHES!!), that number should be divided by 50, giving each state milita its fair share of the weaponry, except for California. They are homosexual, anti-American, war-protesting Communists, and will recieve nothing. California will hereby no longer by a member of the United States, but a rogue nation which must be invaded, with its population thrown into torturous prisons, without trial or dignity. Texas, however, will recieve a double portion of the nuclear weapons, due to their need to bravely kill off starving, unarmed Mexicans from crossing the border. Thank you for your time.


*Yawn* So, have you left the country like you said you were going to, yet?

*Yawn* So, have you left the country like you said you were going to, yet?
He lives in the US?

Here in Virginia, if you have served the other person with a No Trespassing warrant, or they are the subject of a protective order or restraining order, and they step onto your property, you can open fire immediately.

You don't have to retreat in any case. You do not have to shout a warning. But that's Virginia.



I don't know the laws concerning protective orders. Thankfully I have never had to have one filed against anyone. I have been shooting since I was old enough to do so safely. The two exes knew that I was, and still am, very proficient with a firearm. In addition my mother and sister both went through abusive relationships. The exes were warned that I wouldn't stand for it and reminded that they had to sleep sometime and that if they ever raised a hand against me that at the first opportunity they would be tied to the bed and beaten within an inch of thier life and left there to rot.

About the entire gun control issue... the only way to commit genocide is to have complete nce over the population. The only way you can acheive this is if you disarm the populace. If the Jews had guns, and they could fight back, do you think could have taken them so easily? If the Bosnian Muslims had guns, and could fight against Slobodan Milosevic and his soldiers, do you think they would have let themsleves be captured? No. The loss of life that the victims could inflict on the soldiers if they were armed would make a genoscide completly unreasonable, considering the amount of lives that would be lost just arresting the victims. The ONLY way to prevent another genocide is to arm the populace, teach them how to use firearms safely and responsibly, and allow them to use those firearms when the situation calls for it.

Um, doesn't the A-10 have a depleted uranium, highspeed gatling that shoots through tanks? :D :eek: <ducks>

No. It does not shoot DU ammunition, but the A-10 does indeed have a high speed gatling gun (GAU-8/A 30mm) specifically designed for tearing apart tanks, mind you ancient Soviet tanks, but tanks nonetheless. An A-10 will suffer the occastional engine stall because of the power of the gatling gun the GAU-8/A can fire 10 rounds per second. It could fire faster, but that would mean a loss of accuracy and a heavier, more lethal ammunition. The armour-piercing ammuntion of the GAU-8/A is brilliantly designed. The tip has a steel windscreen, which upon impact would bend inward thus exposing the heavy metal penetrater in the center of the round. On the tip of the amour-piercing penetrator is an aluminum positioning ring to keep the penetrator in the center of the round. The HE (high explosive) round is made up of an M505A3 impact fuze, which ignites the HE/incendiary mix in the middle of the round. Enclosing the HE mix is a steel fragmenting body.

The basic gun function closely follows the philosophy of Richard Gatling's original. Each of the seven 30mm barrels is a simple non-repeating rifle, with its own breech and bolt; the cocking and firing mechanism is built into the bolt. The bolt rams the shell into the breech and locks into position; a cocking pin compressess the firing spring, and a trigger releases it. The bolt is unlocked, and slides back to withdraw the empty cartidge case. At this point a little green man is thrown out of the muzzle at 1000miles/second.

No. It does not shoot DU ammunition, but the A-10 does indeed have a high speed gatling gun (GAU-8/A 30mm) specifically designed for tearing apart tanks, mind you ancient Soviet tanks, but tanks nonetheless. An A-10 will suffer the occastional engine stall because of the power of the gatling gun the GAU-8/A can fire 10 rounds per second. It could fire faster, but that would mean a loss of accuracy and a heavier, more lethal ammunition. The armour-piercing ammuntion of the GAU-8/A is brilliantly designed. The tip has a steel windscreen, which upon impact would bend inward thus exposing the heavy metal penetrater in the center of the round. On the tip of the amour-piercing penetrator is an aluminum positioning ring to keep the penetrator in the center of the round. The HE (high explosive) round is made up of an M505A3 impact fuze, which ignites the HE/incendiary mix in the middle of the round. Enclosing the HE mix is a steel fragmenting body.


Then what's the deal with all the stuff in Bosnia, where they're blaming the residual radiation from the A-10s rounds? I'm not disputing you, it's just not jiving with everything else I've read on the rounds. Were they always what you described above, or did they use depleted uranium before?


The basic gun function closely follows the philosophy of Richard Gatling's original. Each of the seven 30mm barrels is a simple non-repeating rifle, with its own breech and bolt; the cocking and firing mechanism is built into the bolt. The bolt rams the shell into the breech and locks into position; a cocking pin compressess the firing spring, and a trigger releases it. The bolt is unlocked, and slides back to withdraw the empty cartidge case. At this point a little green man is thrown out of the muzzle at 1000miles/second.

Wait, 5,280,000 feet per second from a bullet? That's a bit high....I don't think a bullet can traverse the US in 3 seconds. :)

Then what's the deal with all the stuff in Bosnia, where they're blaming the residual radiation from the A-10s rounds? I'm not disputing you, it's just not jiving with everything else I've read on the rounds. Were they always what you described above, or did they use depleted uranium before?



Wait, 5,280,000 feet per second from a bullet? That's a bit high....I don't think a bullet can traverse the US in 3 seconds. :)

As far as I know the A-10 Gatling does have depleted uranium shells. If this is still in debate when I get back from work, I will look it up in Janes.

I think he meant 1000 mph... which brings up another interesting factoid... most fighter planes could outrun a shell from an A-10 if this is true.

Basic information on the GAU-8, the gun in the A-10

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/gau-8a/gau-8.htm

And more detail at:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

Yes, the penetrator has depleted uranium.

As far as I know the A-10 Gatling does have depleted uranium shells. If this is still in debate when I get back from work, I will look it up in Janes.

I think he meant 1000 mph... which brings up another interesting factoid... most fighter planes could outrun a shell from an A-10 if this is true.

That's why you don't fire the guns when you're doing Mach-2 in a fighter. The A-10 was made to take things that don't move quite that fast... :)

Basic information on the GAU-8, the gun in the A-10

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/gau-8a/gau-8.htm

And more detail at:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

Yes, the penetrator has depleted uranium.

Thanks for confirming that I'm not completely insane. :D

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05


http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

the original chart is just a bit off

Thanks for confirming that I'm not completely insane. :D
It's my google-fu you should thank.

Another interesting tidbit on this topic

Consider, for instance, the fact that our nongun homicide rates exceed total homicide rates in many nations. In 1998, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in the United States was 6.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about two-thirds of these killings. Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people - about four times the average annual homicide rate in Japan (0.5 per 100,000) and higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2) or Sweden (1.4). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.

Consider, too, countries where guns are common and crime is rare. Switzerland boasts a heavily armed population and a thriving gun culture (shooting contests for children are a popular tradition). Yet its homicide rates are comparable to Great Britain's. Israel, where most adults are either on active military duty or in the reserves and almost every home has a weapon, also has a low murder rate, on a par with most of Western Europe.

What's more, more than half of gun deaths in this country (about 55 percent) are not homicides, but suicides. Am I saying that we needn't be concerned if people merely shoot themselves rather than shoot others? No. But in this case, blaming the guns for the deaths is especially dubious.

Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands - maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the United States, 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland.

http://reason.com/cy/cy031802.shtml

Why do people kill themselves in Finland? Is it a truly depressing place?

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05


http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

the original chart is just a bit off

And?

Most of the pro-gun types like me are interested in stopping violent crime--not JUST violent crime with a gun. That's what everyone keeps missing. By using those stats, it's a confirmation that the tool is being blamed, not the users of the tool.

Most of us use firearms in a very responsible manner--there are over 80 million of us in the US.

If guns are taken away in the US, we'll just find other ways to keep the violent crime rate that high. It's societal, not based on a specific technology.

EDITED to globalize the situation, not individualize....especially since Ploor was being helpful. :D

It's my google-fu you should thank.

<bows to WL's skill with the google-fu>

And nothing, I just though the first chart showing 22.5 per 100,000 was a bit high

I am a gun owner and NRA Life member, but I will not hide the facts as they are
some would say I have entirely too many guns, but Ted kennedy has killed more people than me in his car.

My thought on punishment for violent criminals would make most third world dictators cringe

one thing that I still don't get, is this having a gun prevents crime.

IF i was robbing you, I would be escaping before you got a chance to pull your weapon. Do the US criminals announce thier intentions first?

If I had a gun and was robbing you, you started to pull a gun, I shoot you.

I'm sorry but I just cant work out when you produce your gun and stop the crime.

And nothing, I just though the first chart showing 22.5 per 100,000 was a bit high


Good point.


I am a gun owner and NRA Life member, but I will not hide the facts as they are
some would say I have entirely too many guns, but Ted kennedy has killed more people than me in his car.

That pretty much stands for most of us. :D

one thing that I still don't get, is this having a gun prevents crime.


Well, many stats say that over 2.5 million crimes are prevented a year in the US, due to firearms--most without ever firing a shot.


IF i was robbing you, I would be escaping before you got a chance to pull your weapon. Do the US criminals announce thier intentions first?


Nope, but those of us who carry when they can are a bit more aware than you might think. No, a gun can't stop every crime, and no, you won't always have time to pull the weapon out, but you can make those numbers dwindle quite nicely.


If I had a gun and was robbing you, you started to pull a gun, I shoot you.


Yup, that's why you don't always pull the gun out.


I'm sorry but I just cant work out when you produce your gun and stop the crime.

Many crimes are committed without a firearm. You produce one, most people run. Crime stopped.

I'm pushing for the legalisation of anti-matter ownership. Someone enters the house, a huge anti-matter container shuts down and spills it everywhere. If I'm going to be attacked, I'll take the whole bloody planet with me. Mwuhuhahahaaahahaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Oh wait, must make use of the smilies, I don't think I've used them before:

:confused: :headbang: :gundge: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

There, that should do it.

one thing that I still don't get, is this having a gun prevents crime.

IF i was robbing you, I would be escaping before you got a chance to pull your weapon. Do the US criminals announce thier intentions first?

If I had a gun and was robbing you, you started to pull a gun, I shoot you.

I'm sorry but I just cant work out when you produce your gun and stop the crime.

Most criminals that have guns never practice w/ them. They are notoriously poor shots in general. You seem to assume that pulling the trigger means you're going to hit your target.

Law Abiding Citizens who own firearms, however, generally practice w/ them more than the police and have a better performance record.

So Goblin pulls out gun and starts firing wildly, LAC ducks, pulls out gun, quickly aims and fires, killing/injuring Goblin.

This scenario occurs much more often than the mainstram media/Anti-Rights groups lead one to believe.

one thing that I still don't get, is this having a gun prevents crime.

IF i was robbing you, I would be escaping before you got a chance to pull your weapon. Do the US criminals announce thier intentions first?

If I had a gun and was robbing you, you started to pull a gun, I shoot you.

I'm sorry but I just cant work out when you produce your gun and stop the crime.

You're under the misconception that having a gun in your hand means that you're instantly ready to shoot. In real life, there's a delay. Statistically, if you are pointing a gun at me, and I have to draw a gun and fire, I still have (on average) a 50 percent chance that I'll shoot you first. This is explained by something called the OODA loop - observe, orient, decide, act. Since I have decided to shoot before I begin the draw, I have already completed an OODA loop - whereas you are still demanding money, and must go through an OODA loop in order to shoot me. Depending on your intelligence, your level of preplanning, and your willingness to kill, you're going to take a second or two - probably longer - and I'll draw and fire in the meantime. It's the way it works out in real life street shootings.

Here's a real life example I can offer you, from a personal acquaintance. It is typical - I have had something similar happen three times - they see you have a gun, and they leave.

This happened a couple months ago. I was in a water store filling up several 5 gal. jugs of water. The water dispensing area is a wall of mirrors so I was able to see everything behind me without turning around. In comes a grungy looking young man carrying a plastic shopping bag, the bag look abnormally “heavy” considering it didn’t look like it had anything in it. The grungy guy walks over to an aisle of candy/junk food and stands there just poking around at the merchandise. The guy manning the counter is reading a book and never looked up. A few seconds go by (I swear it felt like minutes as I was already jumpy at this point) then I see the grungy guy pull a revolver out of the bag and proceed to don on a ski mask. At this point my mind is racing 100mph but expression wise I looked very calm. While I was keeping an eye on the guy through the mirror, I slowly lifted up my over-shirt uncovering my G23. At that moment while he was still in the process of putting on the ski mask he looked over at me and noticed my firearm and quickly walked out of the store.

Here’s what I’ve been trying to cope with. I have a CCP but very rarely do I carry, it just so happened I felt like it that day. I pray the guy never had any rounds in his revolver and therefore decided to just leave, thus avoiding any confrontation. I always wondered how I would react in a “situation” but considering my mind was racing I was surprised I was able to think straight and remembered I had my sidearm on me. Luckily I didn't have to draw, I'm not sure I would have been able to remain in control and use the training I've had.

The stupid thing: When I asked the guy manning the counter if he saw that he was like “saw what?”. Had to finally convince him to call the cops and get the manager down there to access the surveillance tape before he had a clue what had happened.

Um, doesn't the A-10 have a depleted uranium, highspeed gatling that shoots through tanks? :D :eek: <ducks>

some tanks, some of todays more advanced tanks could beat it however

some tanks, some of todays more advanced tanks could beat it however
The A-10 shoots at the top armor, not the sides or front.

There isn't a tank on the face of the earth that can take a top hit from the GAU-8.

The A-10 shoots at the top armor, not the sides or front.

There isn't a tank on the face of the earth that can take a top hit from the GAU-8.


a challenger 2 could

there are no tanks made today that can beat the A-10, tanks are designed with the armour on the front and sides to protect against other tanks and shoulder fired rockets, the A-10 fires down on the top of the tank which has lighter armour and its rate of fire is so high that several rounds are going to hit the same area which will defeat even the new ceramic and reactive armour that is in use

of course the Air force keeps trying to get rid of the A-10 because they do not want a ground support aircraft and the army is not allowed to have airplanes that heavy which is why we have al those ridiculously expensive and not as effective attack helicopters

a challenger 2 could
I doubt it. The DS round from the GAU-8 (as well as the Skeet warhead from the BLU-108 and the BILL-2 missile) is guaranteed to defeat the top armor of any main battle tank.

Top armor is less protective than you think. Part of the reason is that with modern precision weapons, you can't put enough armor on a tank.

For example, the sport of "tank plinking" was started in the first Gulf War. Drop a laser guided 500 pound bomb on a tank, and it disintegrates - no matter what make, model, or what it's made of. So they try to save weight by deciding that top armor only needs to protect against shell splinters.

there are no tanks made today that can beat the A-10, tanks are designed with the armour on the front and sides to protect against other tanks and shoulder fired rockets, the A-10 fires down on the top of the tank which has lighter armour and its rate of fire is so high that several rounds are going to hit the same area which will defeat even the new ceramic and reactive armour that is in use

of course the Air force keeps trying to get rid of the A-10 because they do not want a ground support aircraft and the army is not allowed to have airplanes that heavy which is why we have al those ridiculously expensive and not as effective attack helicopters


um...actualy yeah there is...while the top is the weakest spot, the top of the tank isnt as weak as you think it is

um...actualy yeah there is...while the top is the weakest spot, the top of the tank isnt as weak as you think it is

Certainly weak enough for a BLU-108 penetrator. It's not like the frontal or side armor (frontal armor being, in some tanks, nearly impenetrable).

I doubt it. The DS round from the GAU-8 (as well as the Skeet warhead from the BLU-108 and the BILL-2 missile) is guaranteed to defeat the top armor of any main battle tank.

Top armor is less protective than you think. Part of the reason is that with modern precision weapons, you can't put enough armor on a tank.

For example, the sport of "tank plinking" was started in the first Gulf War. Drop a laser guided 500 pound bomb on a tank, and it disintegrates - no matter what make, model, or what it's made of. So they try to save weight by deciding that top armor only needs to protect against shell splinters.


at 500 yards...it will pierce 67mm of RHA...the top of a challenger is slightly thinner...however, chobram armor is MUCH more resistant than RHA, so it will still hold off the rounds, and about the bomb....well its pretty hard to stop a 500 lbs half steel object falling from thousands of feet in the air :-/

at 500 yards...it will pierce 67mm of RHA...the top of a challenger is slightly thinner...however, chobram armor is MUCH more resistant than RHA, so it will still hold off the rounds, and about the bomb....well its pretty hard to stop a 500 lbs half steel object falling from thousands of feet in the air :-/
Part of the penetrating power is not the fact that one round hits, but you get the armor hammered by several hundred rounds in close proximity.

I've seen the results. It looks like the tank is hammered into chips. The Challenger 2 might survive a few top hits, but not several hundred.

The BLU-108, on the other hand, would go straight through the top and go right through the bottom of the vehicle.

Part of the penetrating power is not the fact that one round hits, but you get the armor hammered by several hundred rounds in close proximity.

I've seen the results. It looks like the tank is hammered into chips. The Challenger 2 might survive a few top hits, but not several hundred.

The BLU-108, on the other hand, would go straight through the top and go right through the bottom of the vehicle.

oh a blu...sorry i thought you ment a gau....i need some sleep, anyway the gau would probably have to hit 2 or 3 times in the same spot or about 2 inches within it to defeat it, which would be a pretty big fluke if it did happen


but sorry i misread your post, i have no doubts a blu 108 would kill any tank

oh a blu...sorry i thought you ment a gau....i need some sleep, anyway the gau would probably have to hit 2 or 3 times in the same sopt or about 2 inches within it to destroy it, which would be a pretty big fluke if it did happen

but sorry i misread your post, i have no doubts a blu 108 would kill any tank

Sorry for my mixup. GAU-8 rounds *do* hit near each other if you get several hundred rounds on the target, which happens more often than not.

Even if you don't hit the top armor enough to pound it in, you're going to lose the main gun, the sights, the tracks on one side, and make one mess of the top deck.

Sorry for my mixup. GAU-8 rounds *do* hit near each other if you get several hundred rounds on the target, which happens more often than not.

Even if you don't hit the top armor enough to pound it in, you're going to lose the main gun, the sights, the tracks on one side, and make one mess of the top deck.


guess you have a point about the bottom part :-/

It might stop a couple of rounds from the A-10, but with the 3000 round per minute rate of fire of the A-10 cannon (50 rounds per second) there will be no armour left at about the 10th round that hits the same spot which is why the A-10 is so effective, and if that does not work, they just turn around and make a pass form the rear, tanks do not work very well without engines and the challenger 2 with that really nice 1200 HP V 12 diesel needs some pretty big radiators which require some really nice and large air intakes on the back deck of the tank (can't put them on the bottom, dirt would clog the radiators to fast)
the rear of a tank has alway been a weak point

on the modern battlefield, tanks are pretty much sitting targets unless you have air superiority and any tank can be destroyed by a big enough explosion next to it, as the US has found out in baghdad and the isreali's have experienced in the gaza strip

In light of the NRA's recent statements, I have changed my stance on protecting American students. It's important that they remain safe from harm, because it's a dangerous world out there. And sometimes, the only way to make an area safe, is to make it more dangerous.

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The NRA says that our schools would be safer if civilians are armed with guns inside our schools, and that everyone has the right to bear arms. In my opinion, government buildings are no different. The fact that I can't walk into the Pentagon with a rocket launcher or drive a tank on the front lawn of the White House is an infringement upon my second amendment rights. Southerners shouldn't have to have ugly gun racks in their pickup trucks. Fully-mountable submachine guns should be legal.

Furthermore, I propose that instead of children being driven in school buses, that instead, every right-wing nutjob, hick, biblethumper, sheepfucker, and Klan member (as well as all the liberals) be issued state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets, with laser-guided, pinpoint accuracy and a take-off weight and carrying capacity of around 500 kilotons, ensuring that it can carry enough weaponry to carpetbomb at least several major cities, before having to resupply.

And yes, definitely an F-16. B-52 bombers were useful to kill hundreds of thousands of people in World War II, but no, they're not a powerful enough machine to protect the American people. And allowing Americans to own B-52 bombers, but not F-16s is an infringement upon my right to bear arms.

Lastly, it should be stated that "nuclear proliferation" is a misnomer. It is an outright lie started by John Kerry, to terrify us. The truth is that the spreading of nuclear weapons makes us safe. For example, you might not realize this, but America is currently giving Pakistan support for their nuclear weapons program, so that we can keep our own American troops there and keep it secure. If we didn't, oh, they'd totally try to fuck us over. Diplomacy or asking them to disarm is fucking stupid.

So, the last I thing I have to propose is that each state form its own militia of civilian citizens, to fight off terrorists, if those damn redcoats come here and try to make us pay taxes without representation. And since the U.S. has about 10 thousand nuclear weapons (more than any other country in the world---BITCHES!!), that number should be divided by 50, giving each state milita its fair share of the weaponry, except for California. They are homosexual, anti-American, war-protesting Communists, and will recieve nothing. California will hereby no longer by a member of the United States, but a rogue nation which must be invaded, with its population thrown into torturous prisons, without trial or dignity. Texas, however, will recieve a double portion of the nuclear weapons, due to their need to bravely kill off starving, unarmed Mexicans from crossing the border. Thank you for your time.

paragraph 1-ok so far so good, i think guns are an effective way for the public to defend themselves

paragraph 2-um ok ur a little misguided there. if every one was isssued a handgun that would be fine, but 5 years old? i could see this happening in schools across the country "uh uh spider man would kick batmans butt" "stop saying that!!!(Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang!!!!)" "Bobby! what did i say about killing your friends over a superhero arguement?" "screw you miss! (Bang Bang Bang)". also grenades are too dangerous and are more effecive tools of killing mass ammounts of people even armed with guns and are too dangerous

paragraph 3-ok thats fine with me...id love to have a M-249 or an M-2 also

pargraph 4-yeah warplanes cost millions of dollars and alot of your information is inaccurate. B-52s were used durring the Vietnam, Gulf, Afghan, and Iraq wars, and were never used durring WWII. As a matter of fact, jets werent even made by america back then and werent used until korea (germany had the only jets in WWII). The B52 is a very powerful tool to protect the US, but only if used by the military and not private owners, otherwise they could obliterate cities if they were pissed at the US and carry up to four nukes and hold the US for ransom. the B52 is also much more powerful than the f16 in the ground attack role.

Paragraph 5- i have no comment on this

paragraph 6-ok were allies with the brittish, they wear camo just like us and not red jackets, thats fucked up about the mexicans and most importantly...yeah ur right fuck cali haha they are bitches (exept the inhabitants of compton, crenshaw, and south-central-- WESTSIDE!)

ok i diddnt read the last 8 pages so if this already got answered just repeat it
without a biased answer, what tank is better the challenger or M1A1?

ok i diddnt read the last 8 pages so if this already got answered just repeat it
without a biased answer, what tank is better the challenger or M1A1?
The Challenger has better armor, better thermal sights (TOGS is the best), and some argue a better gun (more versatile anyway), but the M1A2 (they are all A2 at this time) has a better power to weight ratio and a better cross country speed.

The Leopard is also up there in the "any one of these great tanks will do".

The Challenger has better armor, better thermal sights (TOGS is the best), and some argue a better gun (more versatile anyway), but the M1A2 (they are all A2 at this time) has a better power to weight ratio and a better cross country speed.

The Leopard is also up there in the "any one of these great tanks will do".

I think most of us would simply settle for a tank. Any tank.
T-55 is nice and simple, not very many creature comforts though. Not fast, but not slow either.

I think most of us would simply settle for a tank. Any tank.
T-55 is nice and simple, not very many creature comforts though. Not fast, but not slow either.

A T-55 makes a nice target, too. For virtually any anti-tank weapon, including some fairly light ones.

A T-55 makes a nice target, too. For virtually any anti-tank weapon, including some fairly light ones.

Plus the profile is fairly easy to spot when it's hull-down, because of the smooth rounded turret.

But I wasn't talking about surviving RPGs! I was talking about rush hour!

Plus the profile is fairly easy to spot when it's hull-down, because of the smooth rounded turret.

But I wasn't talking about surviving RPGs! I was talking about rush hour!

Oh, if that's all you want, I'm sure you could get an old M-60.

Heck, even an M113 APC would be fun at rush hour, especially with the M2 mounted on top.

Oh, if that's all you want, I'm sure you could get an old M-60.

Heck, even an M113 APC would be fun at rush hour, especially with the M2 mounted on top.

I never really liked the M60. I used to play a game called Conflict that had the M60A3 in it, and it always got trounced by the T62 because the M-60A3 had a smaller cannon. (105mm vs 115 mm)

Plus it looks fairly plain.

As far as I know the A-10 Gatling does have depleted uranium shells. If this is still in debate when I get back from work, I will look it up in Janes.

I think he meant 1000 mph... which brings up another interesting factoid... most fighter planes could outrun a shell from an A-10 if this is true.

I think I meant what I meant--that I don't give a sh*t. Upon further research, the GAU-8/A does indeed use DU for the armour piercing rod, but not on other variations of the 30mm ammunition. The effects of DU ammunition (like the stuff used now in Iraq by soldiers) is incredibly harmful not only to the soldiers (or "insurgents" if that's your style) being shot at, but civilians and the soldiers shooting it. Because it is a byproduct of the enrichment process used to make nuclear fuel, the rounds themseleves release radiation. Ghastly pictures of demented and deformed newborn babies in Iraq have risen giving light to the effects of depleted uranium bullets. This has been dubbed the "gulf war syndrome," which also applies to American veterans of both Gulf wars.

DU ammunition: Enriching lives everywhere.

In light of the NRA's recent statements, I have changed my stance on protecting American students. It's important that they remain safe from harm, because it's a dangerous world out there. And sometimes, the only way to make an area safe, is to make it more dangerous.

So, I propose that every man, woman, and child, at least 5 years or older, be issued a handgun. They will be allowed to carry this weaponry anywhere they wish. Children will also be equipped and trained to use handgrenades. Sure, some of them may lose a few fingers or limbs, but that's just the price you pay for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The NRA says that our schools would be safer if civilians are armed with guns inside our schools, and that everyone has the right to bear arms. In my opinion, government buildings are no different. The fact that I can't walk into the Pentagon with a rocket launcher or drive a tank on the front lawn of the White House is an infringement upon my second amendment rights. Southerners shouldn't have to have ugly gun racks in their pickup trucks. Fully-mountable submachine guns should be legal.

Furthermore, I propose that instead of children being driven in school buses, that instead, every right-wing nutjob, hick, biblethumper, sheepfucker, and Klan member (as well as all the liberals) be issued state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets, with laser-guided, pinpoint accuracy and a take-off weight and carrying capacity of around 500 kilotons, ensuring that it can carry enough weaponry to carpetbomb at least several major cities, before having to resupply.

And yes, definitely an F-16. B-52 bombers were useful to kill hundreds of thousands of people in World War II, but no, they're not a powerful enough machine to protect the American people. And allowing Americans to own B-52 bombers, but not F-16s is an infringement upon my right to bear arms.

Lastly, it should be stated that "nuclear proliferation" is a misnomer. It is an outright lie started by John Kerry, to terrify us. The truth is that the spreading of nuclear weapons makes us safe. For example, you might not realize this, but America is currently giving Pakistan support for their nuclear weapons program, so that we can keep our own American troops there and keep it secure. If we didn't, oh, they'd totally try to fuck us over. Diplomacy or asking them to disarm is fucking stupid.

So, the last I thing I have to propose is that each state form its own militia of civilian citizens, to fight off terrorists, if those damn redcoats come here and try to make us pay taxes without representation. And since the U.S. has about 10 thousand nuclear weapons (more than any other country in the world---BITCHES!!), that number should be divided by 50, giving each state milita its fair share of the weaponry, except for California. They are homosexual, anti-American, war-protesting Communists, and will recieve nothing. California will hereby no longer by a member of the United States, but a rogue nation which must be invaded, with its population thrown into torturous prisons, without trial or dignity. Texas, however, will recieve a double portion of the nuclear weapons, due to their need to bravely kill off starving, unarmed Mexicans from crossing the border. Thank you for your time.

Scary thing is, I agreed with that, except the nukes part.

I agreed with the first three paragraphs. Everything after that was just a dig on gun owners.

Including the part about driving a tank on the lawn of the white house? :eek:

Including the part about driving a tank on the lawn of the white house? :eek:

Sure, as long as you pay the government to have the lawn remanicured afterwards.

A tank is a heck of a lot safer than those speeding cars that they had to put up barriers for.

Everything stated here shows that the original poster has absolutely no grasp of reality and doesnt understand what hes talking about.

In that last paragraph, I believe he was referring to the minuteman project.

http://www.minutemanproject.com/

Keep in mind I am in liberal Canada and very happy here. I carry no local bias.

The minute-man project is a good thing. It isnt how the media portrays it, it isnt some racist plot to shoot and interrogate every mexican the "vigilantes" see.

1/10th of the population of the U.S. is now made up of "illegal" immigrants. Dont you at least want to KNOW who is getting into your country? Arent you a bit worried when someone can literally walk across your border?

The Minutemen are a bunch of volunteers who have gathered on the border and keep watch. If they see suspected illegals passing through they radio into the border patrol. No contact between the minutemen and a suspect is allowed by the projects admin. The whole point of it is to illustrate the volume of illegals crossing the border. In fact, several illegals have been saved from almost certain death by dehydration out in the desert by first aid from MMP volunteers.

The minutemen as a body are unarmed. However it is up to the participating individual as to whether or not they wish to carry a weapon; it is not an unreasonable position as Mexican "coyotes" are known to be armed and violent towards the border patrol and anyone else they happen to encounter.

The fact that you cannot give these people credit for doing something both peaceful and proactive is pathetic. Grow a frontal lobe and report back when your finished.

Sure, as long as you pay the government to have the lawn remanicured afterwards.

A tank is a heck of a lot safer than those speeding cars that they had to put up barriers for.

Imagine explaining the speeding tanks to visiting dignitaries though, particularly if they end up smashing through the gates or fences. Heh, it would look like a coup de tat.