NationStates Jolt Archive

Several points:

"The White House also issued sanctions against three Mexican drug cartels, allowing the Treasury Department to seize and block financial assets of the Sinaloa Cartel, Los Zetas and La Familia Michoacana."

"The death toll in Mexico's drug war has topped 7,000 since January 2008. Obama praised Mexico for having 'so courageously taken on the drug cartels,' and stressed his government's commitment to stopping the flow of guns and cash that come into Mexico from the United States."

"The United States last month announced a huge expansion of its cooperation with Mexican police to help limit the illicit drug trade, including sending hundreds more US law enforcement officials and funds to the border under the Merida Initiative... But Obama also conceded that more needed to be done in the United States to counter the drug violence by going after usage by American citizens and halting the flow of weapons from the United States to Mexico - a key complaint of the Mexican government."

http://www.mexiconews.net/story/490678

First point: Declaring war on Mexican cartels. Good or bad idea - and what kind of repurcussions should we expect?

Second: A commitment to cooperation, and a positive relationship with Mexico. I can't see a downside to it except... dollar-signs.

Third: Strengthening border security in terms of manpower resources, and in terms of policy. Again - there's the cost, and there's the searching of Southbound traffic across the border - but there's also numbers committed, and the potential promise of more to come.

See: "Obama said he'll urge fast-tracking of the three-year, $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, a joint security plan between the United States, Mexico and other Latin American countries in which U.S. equipment, technology and expertise are used toward combating the drug trade."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.latin.america/index.html?eref=onion


Last point:

"Aims at cartels: "I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. Demand for these drugs in the United States is what's helping keep these cartels in business...More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many of them from gun shops that line our shared border." (5:39 p.m.) U.S. media asks first questions. AP goes to assault weapons ban. "Do you plan to keep your promise" and reinstate ban? To Calderon: Should Obama reinstate the ban?

Obama waffles: "We did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all in my belief...that the assault weapons ban made sense." Says Second Amendment compatible with assault weapons restrictions.

BUT: "Having said that, I don't think any of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy, and so what we focused on was how we could improve our enforcement of existing laws." (5:43 p.m.) Calderon: "We have spoken of assault weapons. He is well aware of our problems...We have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico" since the ban was lifted. (5:46 p.m.)

But sounds accommodating: "We definitely respect the decision of the U.S. Congress and of the U.S. people in this regard...We know that it is a politically delicate topic." (5:47 p.m.)

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0409/obamacalderon_presser_3c23930b-59d0-40d0-84c7-84e510b1e474.html

Is Obama easing out of a campaign promise to ban assault weapons?

And - if so - is that good or bad news?


I personally believe banning assault weapons, and protecting the Second Amendment are not irreconcilable goals. You can have a right to 'keep and bear arms' without having to be assured the right to EVERY type of arm.

I cant say I agree with banning Assault Weapons, Im a firm believer in "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and banning the weapons will only serve to decrease the number of honest people defending themselves, and it wont stop the drug cartels from getting them regardless...

I applaud Obama for not taking this course....

Although, I thought this was a Curious George thread, lol...

I cant say I agree with banning Assault Weapons, Im a firm believer in "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and banning the weapons will only serve to decrease the number of honest people defending themselves, and it wont stop the drug cartels from getting them regardless...

So how about nuclear weapons? Should we let "honest people" have access to nuclear weapons? After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people who detonate nuclear weapons kill people. I just want a nuke to put my coffee cup on, I don't actually want to blow up a city or anything.

Or, rather than descend into the ludicrus, how about we be honest and recognize that the risk of some weapons outweighs any marginal benefit of ownership?

I cant say I agree with banning Assault Weapons, Im a firm believer in "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and banning the weapons will only serve to decrease the number of honest people defending themselves, and it wont stop the drug cartels from getting them regardless...

I applaud Obama for not taking this course....

Although, I thought this was a Curious George thread, lol...

How many people need assault weapons for defense?

My problem is - this looks like the Second Amendment being made to play ball for organized crime.

Sure - an assault weapon ban in the US wouldn't totally dry up the market for assault weapons in Mexico. That's pretty obvious. Depending on your sources, though - we're either THE major contributor (most sources seem to agree), or a fraction of the market (Fox) - which means a ban here must make it harder (or, at least, more expensive) for the cartels to arm themselves.

If we're at war with cartels, doesn't it naturally follow to try to disarm our opponent?

My main concern is the Mexicans will Draft Obama and then make him be their president leaving us stuck with Bidden.

How many people need assault weapons for defense?
The people being attacked by Assault Weapons, Im not entirely sure a hunting rifle will do you much good in said situation...

My problem is - this looks like the Second Amendment being made to play ball for organized crime.

Sure - an assault weapon ban in the US wouldn't totally dry up the market for assault weapons in Mexico. That's pretty obvious. Depending on your sources, though - we're either THE major contributor (most sources seem to agree), or a fraction of the market (Fox) - which means a ban here must make it harder (or, at least, more expensive) for the cartels to arm themselves.

If we're at war with cartels, doesn't it naturally follow to try to disarm our opponent?

Its always worked for organized crime, ask Al Capone...

Im just saying that if you institute a ban, only criminals will have guns, and all those border towns will have either A) defenseless citizens, or B) citizens who've been made criminals...


(im not going to bother with Neo Art, even he admits that ludicrous)

I debate on the banning of guns really quite silly. Most of those that argue are the same ones who argue to legalize drugs and cite Prohibition as their reference for why Prohibition doesn't work. Does anyone think banning guns would just have the same effect?

The people being attacked by Assault Weapons, Im not entirely sure a hunting rifle will do you much good in said situation...

For some reason, I get the feeling you've confused "personal defense" with "rock, paper, sissors". Personal defense against someone armed with a gun, any gun, is a matter of who shoots first. You don't need an assault weapon to defend against an assault weapon.


Im just saying that if you institute a ban, only criminals will have guns, and all those border towns will have either A) defenseless citizens, or B) citizens who've been made criminals...

Oh, I see your problem, you've confused "gun" with "assault weapon". You should realize they are not the same thing, and rectify your ignorance post haste.

(im not going to bother with Neo Art, even he admits that ludicrous)

Good, you recognize it as ludicrous, therefore will you be retracting your statement?

For some reason, I get the feeling you've confused "personal defense" with "rock, paper, sissors". Personal defense against someone armed with a gun, any gun, is a matter of who shoots first. You don't need an assault weapon to defend against an assault weapon.

Yeah, thats why the Military never bothered to switch from the Springfields, I forgot, :rolleyes:

Its a question of rate of fire...



Oh, I see your problem, you've confused "gun" with "assault weapon". You should realize they are not the same thing, and rectify your ignorance post haste.
While not the same thing, they are certainly in the same category...





Good, you recognize it as ludicrous, therefore will you be retracting your statement?
I recognize that using a Nuke as a coffee table is ludicrous, but Im not seeing how this relates to my posts in the slightest, :confused:

You seem to have me confused with you, friend...

The people being attacked by Assault Weapons, Im not entirely sure a hunting rifle will do you much good in said situation...

This is a genuine question, not trying to get at you at all, but how often are people attacked with assault rifles where you live?

Moreover, I'm exceptionally confused by the statement that you need an assault weapon to defend against an assault weapon.

An assault weapon pistol is defined as:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Now why would you need ANY of those to defend against someone with an assault weapon? If someone with an assault weapon shoots at you before you shoot at him, you're just as dead. Likewise, even a regular pistol will drop him just as easily as an assault weapon pistol can.

For personal defense, a pistol that does not meet the classification of "assault weapon" is perfectly fine, and perfectly acceptable for those purposes. There is no need for one for personal defense. They are just as good at killing intruders as an assault weapon is.

The only difference is, assault weapons are much better at killing LOTS of people, all at once.

Yeah, thats why the Military never bothered to switch from the Springfields, I forgot, :rolleyes:
Exactly where the hell do you live that you fear being attacked by sufficient numbers to resemble warzones?

Tell you what, when your house gets broken into by 20 jihadists with ak-47s we can talk. But the reason the military uses assault weapons is because they are involved in military operations.

So I'll repeat, please explain to me where you live that would make this analogy apt. If you face threats of multiple targets with multiple arms, comparable to an active warzone, perhaps I'll reconsider. But until then, no.

This is a genuine question, not trying to get at you at all, but how often are people attacked with assault rifles where you live?

Where I live? not very often, but, we also dont have a Mexican Drug Cartel...

Exactly where the hell do you live that you fear being attacked by sufficient numbers to resemble warzones?

Tell you what, when your house gets broken into by 20 jihadists with ak-47s we can talk. But the reason the military uses assault weapons is because they are involved in military operations.


The question is, how does 20 jiihadists with ak-47s really differ from 20 Mexicans with M-16s?

The people being attacked by Assault Weapons, Im not entirely sure a hunting rifle will do you much good in said situation...


Actually, if you're defending your house, for example, it would be the vastly superior option - better range, more accuracy, more likelihood of a 'kill' per shot.

The hunting rifle probably gives you far greater 'bang for your buck' in a home-invasion/defense type scenario.


Im just saying that if you institute a ban, only criminals will have guns, and all those border towns will have either A) defenseless citizens, or B) citizens who've been made criminals...


Two reasons why you're wrong.

One - a ban on assault weapons doesn't even come close to logically ending in 'only criminals have guns'.

Two - those border towns that are defenseless and/or criminals? We've sent armed responders there, and we're sending more. That's what we're committed to, as mentioned in the OP.

You're effectively arguing that border towns are going to be somehow over-run, even though the 'cavalry' already arrived in this movie.

Where I live? not very often, but, we also dont have a Mexican Drug Cartel...

So, you don't need an assault weapon, then?

The question is, how does 20 jiihadists with ak-47s really differ from 20 Mexicans with M-16s?

Well, the AK-47 can use the M-16 ammo, but the M-16 can't use the AK-47 ammo.

Right?

Ye
I recognize that using a Nuke as a coffee table is ludicrous, but Im not seeing how this relates to my posts in the slightest, :confused:

You don't? You should. In fact I quite explicitly spelled it out for you, I had hoped it would be clear enough. But just in case, I'll try one more time.

At what point do we say that the risk of ownership of certain types of weapons outweighs the marginal benefit we might gain from owning them? I might receive a marginal benefit from owning nuclear warheads. I might like to look at it, dress it up and call it pretty names. But that benefit and enjoyment I get does not outweigh the risk to society at large of having a nuclear armed populace.

So, again, very simple, we recognize, we all recognize, that at some point, the risks of making certain weapons available to the public outweigh the benefits. And when risks outweigh benefits, it's only prudent to not have them available to the public. Thus, if you're arguing assault weapons should be available, you are arguing, in essence, that the benefits are not outweighed by the risks. Thus it becomes your burden to show that.

Because if you're just going to argue some nonsensical position that "well, honest people should be allowed to own them", it has no firmer foundation than claiming honest people should be allowed nuclear weapons. We all draw a line of risk outweighing reward.

You think rewards outweigh risks for assault weapons? Prove it.

The question is, how does 20 jiihadists with ak-47s really differ from 20 Mexicans with M-16s?

No, I think the real question is, if you're in a situation with 20 mexicans with M-16s posing a real and viable threat to your life and wellbeing, why the hell isn't our military and police doing something about that?

Or, to put it another way, is that reality really applicable to that many people, at the end of the day, to justify having assault weapons available to the public, at large.

And, more to point, how many of those 20 mexicans with M16s GOT their M16s because they were so freely available?

The question is, how does 20 jiihadists with ak-47s really differ from 20 Mexicans with M-16s?

M-16s are a pile of bollocks and will probably explode in their hands?

Well, the AK-47 can use the M-16 ammo, but the M-16 can't use the AK-47 ammo.

Right?

Wrong

M-16 - 5.56x45mm NATO
AK-47 - 7.62x39mm M43

So, you don't need an assault weapon, then?
Me? no, I dont own one either...Im just saying that its not fair to take them from the people that are threatened...
Well, the AK-47 can use the M-16 ammo, but the M-16 can't use the AK-47 ammo.

Right?

I just mean in the threat involved, lol...

You don't? You should. In fact I quite explicitly spelled it out for you, I had hoped it would be clear enough. But just in case, I'll try one more time.

At what point do we say that the risk of ownership of certain types of weapons outweighs the marginal benefit we might gain from owning them? I might receive a marginal benefit from owning nuclear warheads. I might like to look at it, dress it up and call it pretty names.


That's disturbing on so many levels...


But that benefit and enjoyment I get does not outweigh the risk to society at large of having a nuclear armed populace.

So, again, very simple, we recognize, we all recognize, that at some point, the risks of making certain weapons available to the public outweigh the benefits. And when risks outweigh benefits, it's only prudent to not have them available to the public. Thus, if you're arguing assault weapons should be available, you are arguing, in essence, that the benefits are not outweighed by the risks. Thus it becomes your burden to show that.

Because if you're just going to argue some nonsensical position that "well, honest people should be allowed to own them", it has no firmer foundation than claiming honest people should be allowed nuclear weapons. We all draw a line of risk outweighing reward.

You think rewards outweigh risks for assault weapons? Prove it.

I agree.

Whether you want to ban ALL guns is a different argument to placing restrictions on which guns should be allowed in a Second Amendment state - which is a line that some people deliberately blur.

*really long post*

I guess I could see that, I really only have two concerns, the aforementioned question of whether the people threatened should have them, and whether banning them would really keep these weapons out of the hands of the Cartels...

...and whether banning them would really keep these weapons out of the hands of the Cartels...

I think a good way to start on finding that out is determining where they are getting them. If they aren't getting them from private citizens then banning the private ownership of them is not going to have any effect.

I think a good way to start on finding that out is determining where they are getting them. If they aren't getting them from private citizens then banning the private ownership of them is not going to have any effect.

Not strictly true... since someone selling weapons to Mexican cartels could be posing as a private owner.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

God save "Proliferation"! ;)

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

God save "Proliferation"! ;)

Nah, Dangerous Minorities do, duh, ;)

If only people kill people, then by that extension we ought to make weaponized pathogens and chemicals freely available to people as well.

Or ban people, your pick.

On the other hand, it's one thing to take away handguns, rifles and shotguns that can be used for numerous purposes but to complain that a class of firearms solely designed for anti-personnel use shouldn't be kept from the reach of anyone who wants them? Honestly, if you need 5.56 NATO to hunt wild animals then either you suck as a hunter or you're a sadistic fuck who likes playing The Most Dangerous Game.

If only people kill people, then by that extension we ought to make weaponized pathogens and chemicals freely available to people as well.

Or ban people, your pick.

On the other hand, it's one thing to take away handguns, rifles and shotguns that can be used for numerous purposes but to complain that a class of firearms solely designed for anti-personnel use shouldn't be kept from the reach of anyone who wants them? Honestly, if you need 5.56 NATO to hunt wild animals then either you suck as a hunter or you're a sadistic fuck who likes playing The Most Dangerous Game.

Yeah, I cant argue with that, I concede...Mine was more of a Knee-Jerk reaction than anything else...

although, no offense meant, but Neo Art just rubs people that way, lol...

Nah, Dangerous Minorities do, duh, ;)

Like a Korean? :wink:

Not strictly true... since someone selling weapons to Mexican cartels could be posing as a private owner.

How is my statement not true?

How is my statement not true?

You said: "If they aren't getting them from private citizens then banning the private ownership of them is not going to have any effect".

Which is clearly false IF the people supplying weapons to Mexican cartels can LOOK LIKE private citizens.

Banning private ownership would make it illegal to sell the weapon to a private citizen - which would stop the weapon falling into the hands of people that ARE private citizens... AND the hands of people that just LOOK LIKE private citizens.

So - banning private ownership WOULD have an effect. Thus your argument is not 'strictly true'. Unless you can 100% discount the possibility that cartels are obtaining weapons through apparently-legitimate suppliers.

Like a Korean? :wink:

Ouch, a 2-Hit combo with a Kimchi jab and a VTech reference.

Yeah, I cant argue with that, I concede...Mine was more of a Knee-Jerk reaction than anything else...

although, no offense meant, but Neo Art just rubs people that way, lol...

No offense taken. Frankly speaking, if you find your ability to think in a rational fashion is clouded by a rather irrational dislike over a stranger who you've never met, due solely to words on a computer screen...I fear that's entirely your problem, not mind.

No offense taken. Frankly speaking, if you find your ability to think in a rational fashion is clouded by a rather irrational dislike over a stranger who you've never met, due solely to words on a computer screen...I fear that's entirely your problem, not mind.

Its not really a dislike, its more the fact that you have an uncanny ability to push buttons, and use it to its fullest extent, every time, lol...

But, on the other hand, I should work on my ability to not have my buttons pressed as well, :wink:

Why would the cartels bother buying $1500 semi-auto assault weapons in the US, instead of buying $300-600 full-auto AKs from the black market. You have to smuggle them anyway, so why go for semi auto?

The 90% claim is bullshit (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/04/05/lies-damned-lies-and-mexican-guns/)

Yes its a site about the joys of firearms, but he provides links to sources from the American Federal Government and the Mexican Government.

Why would the cartels bother buying $1500 semi-auto assault weapons in the US, instead of buying $300-600 full-auto AKs from the black market. You have to smuggle them anyway, so why go for semi auto?

The 90% claim is bullshit (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/04/05/lies-damned-lies-and-mexican-guns/)

Yes its a site about the joys of firearms, but he provides links to sources from the American Federal Government and the Mexican Government.

Oh yes, lets buy guns legally in the US and then take them back over the border, or buy three full-auto assualt rifle on the black market for the price of that one semi-auto rifle!

Makes perfect sense.

Oh yes, lets buy guns legally in the US and then take them back over the border, or buy three full-auto assualt rifle on the black market for the price of that one semi-auto rifle!

Makes perfect sense.

Not far from the mark.

There is a gun store near by. It was robbed for over 100 hand guns, semi-autos and assorted rifles......

On the other hand, it's one thing to take away handguns, rifles and shotguns that can be used for numerous purposes but to complain that a class of firearms solely designed for anti-personnel use shouldn't be kept from the reach of anyone who wants them? Honestly, if you need 5.56 NATO to hunt wild animals then either you suck as a hunter or you're a sadistic fuck who likes playing The Most Dangerous Game.

This post is made of fail and lack of knowledge on the subject.

Assault weapons are no more deadly than any other semiauto rifle.
The only differences between this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Stag2wi.jpg

and this

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/mini14p.jpg


are purely cosmetic.

The differences between 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO#5.56mm_NATO_versus_.223_Remington) which is a very common small game round.

Naturally, he doesn't tackle, or even take into consideration, the real solution: Ending the fucking War on Drugs.

A funny thought just struck me. What's the difference between a semi-automatic rifle (the one that would be banned under an AWB) and a semi-automatic handgun?

Not much, right? So why support banning a rifle and not a hand gun? How is a handgun safer than a semi automatic rifle?

A funny thought just struck me. What's the difference between a semi-automatic rifle (the one that would be banned under an AWB) and a semi-automatic handgun?

Not much, right? So why would support banning a rifle and not a hand gun? How is a handgun safer than a semi automatic rifle?

But, but, assualt weapons are ebil!111! even though they are the same thing as a regular semi-auto rifles, but they just look cooler!

A funny thought just struck me. What's the difference between a semi-automatic rifle (the one that would be banned under an AWB) and a semi-automatic handgun?


Higher caliber. Higher ammo capacity per clip.

Im not even a gun guy and I know this.

But, but, assualt weapons are ebil!111! even though they are the same thing as a regular semi-auto rifles, but they just look cooler!

Exactly, and that's why I think people don't understand that it actually is infringing on second amendment rights. The government wants to ban a regular type of weapon that really isn't that special when compared to say a Glock 19.

To the public "Assault Weapon" means something designed to kill people and do it well, so people welcome a ban in the name of safety. In reality the "Assault Weapon Ban" is the ban of semi-automatic rifles, so any rifle available to the public would be bolt action rifles.

Higher caliber. Higher ammo capacity per clip.

Im not even a gun guy and I know this.

Does that make the rifle more dangerous than a handgun?

Does that make the rifle more dangerous than a handgun?

Are you going to seriously pretend like higher caliber and higher ammo capacity doesnt matter?

Higher caliber means you can peirce body armor easier. Meaning you can kill more cops.

Higher ammo capacity means you can kill more people when you shoot up your school faster and easier because you dont have to reload as often.

I use 'you' as a very general 'you'. Im not implying youre likely to do either.

Are you going to seriously pretend like higher caliber and higher ammo capacity doesnt matter?

Higher caliber means you can peirce body armor easier. Meaning you can kill more cops.

Higher ammo capacity means you can kill more people when you shoot up your school faster and easier because you dont have to reload as often.

I use 'you' as a very general 'you'. Im not implying youre likely to do either.

Not nearly as easy to conceal, though.

Not nearly as easy to conceal, though.

If youre shooting up a school conealing it isnt as hard as youd imagine.

If youre shooting up a school conealing it isnt as hard as youd imagine.

Probably not. But I am talking more about situations involving robberies or muggings.

Are you going to seriously pretend like higher caliber and higher ammo capacity doesnt matter?

Higher caliber means you can peirce body armor easier. Meaning you can kill more cops.

Higher ammo capacity means you can kill more people when you shoot up your school faster and easier because you dont have to reload as often.

I use 'you' as a very general 'you'. Im not implying youre likely to do either.

And the military rifles tend to have rounds made specifically for the purpose of breaching protective armor. Since when was the last time anyone needed armor-piercing rounds to take down a Kevlar-padded deer?

The only differences between this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Stag2wi.jpg

and this

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/mini14p.jpg
are purely cosmetic.


Then you're be lying out of your ass, because the displayed on the top are actual firearms, the one on the bottom is a replica. Quite a significant difference.

Are you going to seriously pretend like higher caliber and higher ammo capacity doesnt matter?

You still didn't answer my question. Do both of those attributes make the rifle more dangerous than a handgun?

Higher caliber means you can peirce body armor easier. Meaning you can kill more cops.

Who said anything about killing cops? Besides, do you need a semi automatic rifle to kill cops? A handgun just won't do the job?

Higher ammo capacity means you can kill more people when you shoot up your school faster and easier because you dont have to reload as often.


And you can get extended magazines for handguns as well. But let's just disregard that fact.


EDIT: Even bolt action rifles have the ability to pierce armor, just FYI. So a regular deer rifle round is just as dangerous as "armor piercing rounds".

EDIT: Even bolt action rifles have the ability to pierce armor, just FYI. So a regular deer rifle round is just as dangerous as "armor piercing rounds".

Honestly, this stuff should be common knowledge to everyone here. The military just developed armour-piercing rounds for kicks, everyone knows that. They just wanted their ammo to sound cooler. It was a waste of money, to be serious.

Actually though, it's not whether or not it can pierce armour that matters (how often will a target happen to be wearing armour anyway). The higher calibre means a more serious wound means a higher chance of shock, sepsis and death.

Yeah, thats why the Military never bothered to switch from the Springfields, I forgot, :rolleyes:

Its a question of rate of fire...

When you're fighting a large group. Are you seriously claiming there are even a reasonable number of incidents where someone would have been saved if only they'd had an assault weapon? Most assault weapons are hard to control when put on automatic or even burst. There is pretty much nothing you can do with an assault weapon, you couldn't do with a good rifle. Give me a rifle and a scope and if there's less than five of you, you probably won't make it within 500 feet of my house. Give me an AK-47 and if I'm lucky I'll wound one of you, but not before you're in range to likely harm or kill me.

When you're fighting a large group. Are you seriously claiming there are even a reasonable number of incidents where someone would have been saved if only they'd had an assault weapon? Most assault weapons are hard to control when put on automatic or even burst. There is pretty much nothing you can do with an assault weapon, you couldn't do with a good rifle. Give me a rifle and a scope and if there's less than five of you, you probably won't make it within 500 feet of my house. Give me an AK-47 and if I'm lucky I'll wound one of you, but not before you're in range to likely harm or kill me.

That would be the crux of it....


But, really, Ive already gotten out of this fight, Its not even really about that, but rather whether its fair to take the option from the potential victims, and whether a ban would prevent the cartels from getting the weapons...

M-16s are a pile of bollocks and will probably explode in their hands?

Bullshit. I never had a single misfire with mine.

That would be the crux of it....


But, really, Ive already gotten out of this fight, Its not even really about that, but rather whether its fair to take the option from the potential victims, and whether a ban would prevent the cartels from getting the weapons...

Dude, you're describing a war. If there is a war where we need to have automatic weapons by random citizens, then we've got a much larger problem. Bullets don't magically stop at your property line.

Dude, you're describing a war. If there is a war where we need to have automatic weapons by random citizens, then we've got a much larger problem. Bullets don't magically stop at your property line.

The way its being talked about it is a war...Obama has already stated that the ban wont be pushed anyway, so I really dont care to debate the point any further...

Does that make the rifle more dangerous than a handgun?

Yes. It makes them pass through more. It increases their range. From 100 yards can a glock round pass through cinder block? I doubt it. And M-16 round can do it from 300 yards.

So, yes, having a rifle that can pass through the walls of most buildings and can travel for hundreds of yards while firing multiple uncontrolled rounds is quite a bit more dangerous than any handgun.

The way its being talked about it is a war...Obama has already stated that the ban wont be pushed anyway, so I really dont care to debate the point any further...

Which means it should be fought by people who are uniformed and trained. It's not to anyone's benefit to let the average citizen take it to the streets. Like I said, bullets don't stop at property lines.

Bullshit. I never had a single misfire with mine.

Probably referring to the problems with the earlier generation of M-16s around Vietnam, a problem which was compounded when lower-quality powder was substituted for the grades specified by manufacturer which resulted in quicker corrosion of the barrels and various misfire funs.

Probably referring to the problems with the earlier generation of M-16s around Vietnam, a problem which was compounded when lower-quality powder was substituted for the grades specified by manufacturer which resulted in quicker corrosion of the barrels and various misfire funs.

Not to mention, there's a significant difference between wading waste deep in a jungle and walking around in relatively open, dry, hot climate.

How many people need assault weapons for defense?

Armed Revolutionaries. That is, really, the principle behing the 2nd Amendment, allowing the people to remain their own sovereigns, no matter who it is that would wish them harm. (In this case, should the gov't start going down the wrong path, the 2nd Amendment ensures that plenty of people should have guns to take liberty back, by force if need be).

I don't find the ownership of military-grade weaponry (small arms, that is) to be preposterous at all. Do I think such legal ownership should be harder to come by than for a deer rifle? Sure, but I do not think it should be outright banned.

Bullshit. I never had a single misfire with mine.

An M16A1? Really? I heard there were jamming horror stories about it.

An M16A1? Really? I heard there were jamming horror stories about it.

Actually, A2 mostly. However, the person I replied to didn't specify. Regardless, A1's are fairly uncommon these days. We've had the A2 for twenty years.

I don't find the ownership of military-grade weaponry (small arms, that is) to be preposterous at all. Do I think such legal ownership should be harder to come by than for a deer rifle? Sure, but I do not think it should be outright banned.

I understand there is already a class 3 license that lets you own that sort of weaponry. It's a lot of hoops to jump through, but it does fit your criteria.

Armed Revolutionaries. That is, really, the principle behing the 2nd Amendment, allowing the people to remain their own sovereigns, no matter who it is that would wish them harm. (In this case, should the gov't start going down the wrong path, the 2nd Amendment ensures that plenty of people should have guns to take liberty back, by force if need be).

I don't find the ownership of military-grade weaponry (small arms, that is) to be preposterous at all. Do I think such legal ownership should be harder to come by than for a deer rifle? Sure, but I do not think it should be outright banned.

That would be true if it were actually possible to lead an armed revolution with those weapons. Unfortunately, unless you've got tanks and bombs, you're pretty much screwed if you're facing this country's military. The only reason that Iraqis were even remotely successful is because we've made an attempt not to level the place. In the US, if a true war broke out against the government, there is no chance the revolt would succeed unless part or all of the military joined the revolution. Assault rifles won't change that.

That would be true if it were actually possible to lead an armed revolution with those weapons. Unfortunately, unless you've got tanks and bombs, you're pretty much screwed if you're facing this country's military. The only reason that Iraqis were even remotely successful is because we've made an attempt not to level the place. In the US, if a true war broke out against the government, there is no chance the revolt would succeed unless part or all of the military joined the revolution. Assault rifles won't change that.

Yep, and 18th century hunting muskets would never be able to stand up to British military training, artillery, or superior equipment and numbers.

Except that the revolutionaries won their too.

The problem isn't revolutionaries as a credible military threat alone. The larger problem would be the socio-economic problems that could arise, fracturing the state, and very possibly the military as well. A mass extermination of American revolutionaries would likely draw more and more civilians in. Small arms wouldn't be the decider, but it would still be something more on the balancing scale.

The only reason that Iraqis were even remotely successful is because we've made an attempt not to level the place.

Is this suggesting that if revolution came to hand, the government would not use limited warfare? I assume that any sensible government would use limited warfare against itself. It's more a victory for revolutionaries, if the military destroys production, commerce, and housing, as the military is more dependant that revolutionaries would be.

Yep, and 18th century hunting muskets would never be able to stand up to British military training, artillery, or superior equipment and numbers.

Except that the revolutionaries won their too.

The problem isn't revolutionaries as a credible military threat alone. The larger problem would be the socio-economic problems that could arise, fracturing the state, and very possibly the military as well. A mass extermination of American revolutionaries would likely draw more and more civilians in. Small arms wouldn't be the decider, but it would still be something more on the balancing scale.

To be fair, the Revolution only really took off when other foreign powers saw it as a chance to jump on Britain's back and contributed much needed money, supplies and manpower to the American rebellion. Up to that point the colonists were putting up a struggle but were being slowly ground down by the Redcoats.

Yep, and 18th century hunting muskets would never be able to stand up to British military training, artillery, or superior equipment and numbers.

Except that the revolutionaries won their too.

The problem isn't revolutionaries as a credible military threat alone. The larger problem would be the socio-economic problems that could arise, fracturing the state, and very possibly the military as well. A mass extermination of American revolutionaries would likely draw more and more civilians in. Small arms wouldn't be the decider, but it would still be something more on the balancing scale.

And couldn't, by fact. We were losing. Not to mention, that you're comparing a war against a military stationed on the other side of the ocean in the 18th century. A more complete comparison would what would have happened in the civil war if the South had not comparable weaponry. Given they lost anyway, I'd hardly suggest they would have been better off if they had roughly the same technology against planes and tanks.

Is this suggesting that if revolution came to hand, the government would not use limited warfare? I assume that any sensible government would use limited warfare against itself. It's more a victory for revolutionaries, if the military destroys production, commerce, and housing, as the military is more dependant that revolutionaries would be.

I'm saying if it reached a point where it had a chance as a remotely successful revolution that, yes, our government would pull out the stoppers. It would be very difficult to fight a war against this government if it untied it's hands.

And the military rifles tend to have rounds made specifically for the purpose of breaching protective armor. Since when was the last time anyone needed armor-piercing rounds to take down a Kevlar-padded deer?

Nah. The opposite. Military calibers are for wounding (because a wounded soldier ties up more of the enemies' logistic base than a dead one), hunting rifles are for killing.

How many people need assault weapons for defense?


What is an "assault weapon"? If I knew what it was I could have an opinion. It sounds like it a term that is used by anti-gun people because assault sounds offensive instead of defensive.

If "assault weapon" means automatic .50 caliber machine guns mounted to cars, it sounds excessive. If it just means semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols, there is nothing excessive about this at all.

To be truly honest, I am far, far, far more scared about the people who seriously talk about leading armed revolution against the United States government than I am about the possibility of a US government worth taking up arms against.

Those people scare the fuck out of me.

Yep, and 18th century hunting muskets would never be able to stand up to British military training, artillery, or superior equipment and numbers.

Except that the revolutionaries won their too.


By not fighting a war on the same terms.

The 'War of Independence' was largely an asymmetrical war, fought against an army using European War models.

In this day and age, a really well organised native militia could mount a hell of an insurgency, but couldn't overthrow the government - not unless the (real) military joined the cause.

bullshit. I never had a single misfire with mine.

ZOMGz ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

ZOMGz ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

"When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in March 1965, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 featured a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), neither the bore nor the chamber of the M16/XM16E1 was chrome-lined. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.

On February 28, 1967, the XM16E1 was standardized as the M16A1. Major revisions to the design followed. The rifle was finally given a chrome-lined chamber (and later, the entire bore) to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition. Rifle cleaning tools and powder solvents/lubricants were issued. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted, and a comic book style manual was circulated among the troops to demonstrate proper maintenance. The reliability problems of the M16 diminished quickly, although the rifle's reputation continued to suffer. Moreover, complaints about the inadequate penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 mm cartridge persisted throughout the Vietnam conflict.

Teething problem, long since addressed.

Then you're be lying out of your ass, because the displayed on the top are actual firearms, the one on the bottom is a replica. Quite a significant difference.

Oh, i didn't realize because my google image search turned up a replica, that completely invalidates my point. I'm sorry.

You still didn't answer my question. Do both of those attributes make the rifle more dangerous than a handgun?


Yes. Holy fuck I cant believe I even had to answer that. More ammo + higher rate of fire = more dead people.

WE have the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms".

Q. Why do we have the right to keep and bear arms?

A. To kill tyrants (Foreign or demestic) in the event that they try to expand government power beyond its consitutional bounds. For self protection against men or states which intrude upon previously stated rights.

Their is nothing in the US constitution limiting the right to bear arms, thus it falls to the states and the people to regulate. Simply put its not within the judistriction of the federal government to decide.

Oh I so love armchair lawyers...what would NSG be without them.

The M-16A2 also jams easily, it sucks!

The m-16a2 is semi-automatic, the M-16a1 was fully automatic, it was changed after the US Army relized that during the Vietnam war US troops were firing close to 5,000 shots for every "confirmed" hit. Wheather or not that number was acurate or not it dose seem to hint at one thing; faster automatic weapons don't = more dead people.

The M-16A2 also jams easily, it sucks!

The m-16a2 is semi-automatic, the M-16a1 was fully automatic, it was changed after the US Army relized that during the Vietnam war US troops were firing close to 5,000 shots for every "confirmed" hit. Wheather or not that number was acurate or not it dose seem to hint at one thing; faster automatic weapons don't = more dead people.

Define easily. Compared to what? What level of jams per rounds would it have to reach in order for you to agree it doesn't jam easily?

ZOMGz ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

Dude, now you're following me around. Seriously, man, get over it. Adding stalking to your list of behaviors isn't going to revive your argument.

What you won't find is me 10 pages later complaining people won't accept my anecdotes as gospel. Instead, I'd present evidence if necessary (if someone already hadn't done so). It's called debate. You're welcome to try it.

Dude, now you're following me around. Seriously, man, get over it. Adding stalking to your list of behaviors isn't going to revive your argument. Didn't stalk you. I was reading the thread. Still paranoid?

What you won't find is me 10 pages later complaining people won't accept my anecdotes as gospel. Of course not, nor should you. Instead, I'd present evidence if necessary (if someone already hadn't done so). It's called debate. You're welcome to try it.You were debating me?

Yes. Holy fuck I cant believe I even had to answer that. More ammo + higher rate of fire = more dead people.

An armed civilian is a citizen, and unarmed one a subject, and a nation of unarmed civilians is a nation of slaves.

Didn't stalk you. I was reading the thread. Still paranoid?

Of course not, nor should you. You were debating me?

That's your second post in the thread. So far you've not replied to anyone else nor addressed the thread topic. Feel free to do so. It would be a good idea.

An armed civilian is a citizen, and unarmed one a subject, and a nation of unarmed civilians is a nation of slaves.

Good thing that no one with any power in the US has proposed disarming our citizenry. But, hey, keep pretending like that's the debate.

Yes. Holy fuck I cant believe I even had to answer that. More ammo + higher rate of fire = more dead people.

First off you can buy extended magazines for handguns. Second, A semi-automatic rifle doesn't have a higher rate of fire than a semi-automatic handgun. The gun fires as fast as you can pull the trigger.

So your argument holds true for both semi-auto rifles and pistols.

That's your second post in the thread. So far you've not replied to anyone else nor addressed the thread topic. Feel free to do so. It would be a good idea.

Nah

Yes. Holy fuck I cant believe I even had to answer that. More ammo + higher rate of fire = more dead people.

Video I couldn't fina earlier. Why large capacity clips don't stop anything. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)

Only have to listen to fist few minutes.

Nah

Good things you're not stalking though. Seriously, I know it was this big deal to you that I didn't accept your claims as gospel based on your personal experiences, but get over it. You have to stop taking this stuff so personal or you're going to get yourself into more trouble. I'm not being sarcastic or teasing you. Get over it.

Good things you're not stalking though. Seriously, I know it was this big deal to you that I didn't accept your claims as gospel based on your personal experiences, but get over it. You have to stop taking this stuff so personal or you're going to get yourself into more trouble. I'm not being sarcastic or teasing you. Get over it.


I never asked you to.

Video I couldn't fina earlier. Why large capacity clips don't stop anything. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)

Only have to listen to fist few minutes.

Yes, because they have infinite numbers of clips, right? Yes, you can change clips. Usually very quickly. But clips don't always seat right. Clips with smaller capacities mean you need more clips. More reloads. More issues with reloading. More searching for a clip. All kinds of reasons.

And after all that, that's not the entirety of the point made by the person you're replying to. Instead you ignored the total post, picked one point and badly addressed it.

Oh, i didn't realize because my google image search turned up a replica, that completely invalidates my point. I'm sorry.

Yes, it completely invalidates your point, since replicas generally can't shoot to begin with. It also brings into question your silly little beliefs that untrained citizenry with access to small arms is somehow capable of resisting a government with access to not only to trained personnel with small arms, but mobile armor, air support, naval assets and strategic weapons and no compunction against using them.

Yes, because they have infinite numbers of clips, right?

I got some news for you. Big magazines are bigger and heavier than little ones.

Yes, it completely invalidates your point, since replicas generally can't shoot to begin with. It also brings into question your silly little beliefs that untrained citizenry with access to small arms is somehow capable of resisting a government with access to not only to trained personnel with small arms, but mobile armor, air support, naval assets and strategic weapons and no compunction against using them.

I'm sorry but what?

My point was that there are no real differences between an "assualt weapon" and any other semi auto. And that 5.56 NATO is the same as .223 Win with a thicker case.

I got some news for you. Big magazines are bigger and heavier than little ones.

Yup, but they weigh less than the same number of rounds in more magazines and take up less space. Go ahead, check. And, once again you ignored most of the argument to focus on something you think you have a reply to.

An armed civilian is a citizen, and unarmed one a subject, and a nation of unarmed civilians is a nation of slaves.

No, a person that has 'citizenship' is a citizen, and a nation of unarmed citizens are neither more nor less slaves than they are with guns - they just don't have guns.

Instead of spouting pointless propaganda, you could try saying something consistent and worthwhile. Or even... I don't know... on topic?

I'm sorry but what?

My point was that there are no real differences between an "assualt weapon" and any other semi auto. And that 5.56 NATO is the same as .223 Win with a thicker case.

Which is irrelevent. Even if Obama was inclined to try to push an 'assault rifle' ban, and even if - by some unimaginable stretch - that included other similar things that weren't assualt rifles...

...it still wouldn't be a complete ban on guns, so your 'nation of unarmed civilians' would still be nonsensical and off-topic.

Yes, it completely invalidates your point, since replicas generally can't shoot to begin with. It also brings into question your silly little beliefs that untrained citizenry with access to small arms is somehow capable of resisting a government with access to not only to trained personnel with small arms, but mobile armor, air support, naval assets and strategic weapons and no compunction against using them.

Perhaps, even more importantly... a technological and intelligence edge that means 'war' with civilians is nonsensical.

An armed civilian is a citizen, and unarmed one a subject, and a nation of unarmed civilians is a nation of slaves.


see, this is what I mean. My government doesn't scare me, this kind of shit scares me. I'm not worried about government jackbooted stormtroopers kicking down my door and dragging my poor unarmed and defenseless self away in the middle of the night.

I'm worried about crazy militant nutcases who spout scary shit like this who horde munitions and copies of The Turner Diaries talking about how they "won't be the government's slaves"

see, this is what I mean. My government doesn't scare me, this kind of shit scares me. I'm not worried about government jackbooted stormtroopers kicking down my door and dragging my poor unarmed and defenseless self away in the middle of the night.

I'm worried about crazy militant nutcases who spout scary shit like this who horde munitions and copies of The Turner Diaries talking about how they "won't be the government's slaves"

What's funny is that the same militant nutcases almost to a man supported the past government that did more to ignore their freedoms than almost any administration past. If there were every government jackbooted stormtroopes they were illegally tapping our conversations, imprisoning people without trial and basically claiming that anything they did in the name of protecting our freedoms, even if it meant ignoring them, was okay.

Oh I so love armchair lawyers...what would NSG be without them.
Just because you've had to take three years of law school and an infamously difficult exam to be able to practice law, you seem to be under the delusion it is somehow not clear-cut, perhaps even confusing enough that a literate person with a high school education in politics could not necessarily understand it. It is a dangerous idea, Neo Art.

Just because you've had to take three years of law school and an infamously difficult exam to be able to practice law, you seem to be under the delusion it is somehow not clear-cut, perhaps even confusing enough that a literate person with a high school education in politics could not necessarily understand it. It is a dangerous idea, Neo Art.

Or armchair scientists. Or armchair politicians. Good thing all the people complaining about armchair lawyers make such a point of avoiding commenting on the areas they aren't trained in. Yup.

You're right or you're wrong. Dem doesn't complain that someone who disagrees with her on stem cells isn't a scientist. She complains that someone who disagrees with her on stem cells doesn't understand stem cells.