Ontopic Gun issues

G-Shock

Flaccid Member
Feb 25, 2009
3,175
11
0
Dallas
Let's be honest the Jersey shore is doing more damage to this country then guns.

2dr5hue.jpg
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
, but I don't think you "need" full auto. That still does not mean you should not have the option for it if you want it.

I'm trying to figure out, at what point in home defense, real home defense, not sensationalized hollywood media home defense, you would ever, ever have a need for going full auto.
 

G-Shock

Flaccid Member
Feb 25, 2009
3,175
11
0
Dallas
Did YOU serve any time in the armed forces, G-Shock?


No, I also posted that I read what he wrote wrong. Serving does not mean you know a lot about weapons, I've met plenty of "confused soldiers" I'm not saying that's the case here, again I read what he wrote wrong.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
463
648
43
Austin
There is no reason for the average citizen to have full auto weapons. Recreation and desire don't fall under reasonable freedom, either.
 

G-Shock

Flaccid Member
Feb 25, 2009
3,175
11
0
Dallas
I'm trying to figure out, at what point in home defense, real home defense, not sensationalized hollywood media home defense, you would ever, ever have a need for going full auto.

So all firearms have to be for self defense?

1st I want to be able to do this. Second, Full auto and 3rnd burts do have a place. I'm not saying you need it for every day home defense, that's still not a reason to take it away from people.



Also what about when my cocaine empire goes wrong. Then I'll need to do this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
Where do you draw that line at sarcasmo? Should semi autos be illegal too? double action triggers on revolvers? Anything beyond a musket?
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
463
648
43
Austin
No-one needs it, that's not the point, it's illogical to legislate that as well.

I would agree with you in a country like Norway, with 4 million citizens. In a country like the U.S., with hundreds of millions, I think we need tighter controls.

Yes, you read that right. Liberty works best in small numbers. :fly:
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
No-one needs it, that's not the point, it's illogical to legislate that as well.

Well, going with that train of thought, legislating the control of nuclear weapons is also illogical to legislate. Or high explosives. I mean, fuck, let's just open up the entire possibility of whatever is in the arsenal is okay for public use.

No. I'm all for public ownership of firearms, but I do believe in a few limits. Fully auto. Why? Really, more trouble than it's worth to let that loose. Large Mag's, this ban I don't get but some people needed to get re-elected after Columbine so that's how this got pushed. SBR's, mostly a method put in place to have MORE charges to throw at drug importers than just 'bringing dope over the border'.

The thing is, though, just because you 'want' something, doesn't mean it should be fine to have it. I want to have a fully functional M1A1 abrahms tank. Do I need it? Nope. I just want one. And I want to blow things up with it. Trust me when I say society is much better off with my not being able to get one of these than being able to plunk down the AMEX Black and drive one off the lot.

And that's the point. The legislation for these is happening because people have abused the right to bare arms, many many times. To just let it continue isn't responsible. You can blame government for gun control, but really the blame lays on those who pull shit with their guns that forced the public to demand something be done, and a mildly retarded group of public servants to doing something about it.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
463
648
43
Austin
Where do you draw that line at sarcasmo? Should semi autos be illegal too? double action triggers on revolvers? Anything beyond a musket?

I draw the line at fully automatic guns and other military weapons in the hands of Joe Plumber. Full auto weapons are currently legal depending on state law and licensing requirements, and I'm fine with that the way it is. But it should be damn difficult to qualify to own one.

I also think .45 bullets should be cheaper.
 

G-Shock

Flaccid Member
Feb 25, 2009
3,175
11
0
Dallas
No. I'm all for public ownership of firearms, but I do believe in a few limits. Fully auto. Why? Really, more trouble than it's worth to let that loose. Large Mag's, this ban I don't get but some people needed to get re-elected after Columbine so that's how this got pushed. SBR's, mostly a method put in place to have MORE charges to throw at drug importers than just 'bringing dope over the border'.

Blah, head on backwards today.
 
Last edited:
Well, going with that train of thought, legislating the control of nuclear weapons is also illogical to legislate. Or high explosives. I mean, fuck, let's just open up the entire possibility of whatever is in the arsenal is okay for public use.

No. I'm all for public ownership of firearms, but I do believe in a few limits. Fully auto. Why? Really, more trouble than it's worth to let that loose. Large Mag's, this ban I don't get but some people needed to get re-elected after Columbine so that's how this got pushed. SBR's, mostly a method put in place to have MORE charges to throw at drug importers than just 'bringing dope over the border'.

The thing is, though, just because you 'want' something, doesn't mean it should be fine to have it. I want to have a fully functional M1A1 abrahms tank. Do I need it? Nope. I just want one. And I want to blow things up with it. Trust me when I say society is much better off with my not being able to get one of these than being able to plunk down the AMEX Black and drive one off the lot.

And that's the point. The legislation for these is happening because people have abused the right to bare arms, many many times. To just let it continue isn't responsible. You can blame government for gun control, but really the blame lays on those who pull shit with their guns that forced the public to demand something be done, and a mildly retarded group of public servants to doing something about it.
You act like full-auto is somehow difficult to acheive, it wouldn't take a moderately determined criminal more than 10 minutes to make most semi-auto firearms "full auto" (Unsafely of course, but hey, they're criminals, who cares".

Laws ONLY AFFECT THE LAW ABIDING, people aren't going to suddenly have more shootouts simply because full-auto is available to everyone.

And actually, it *is* available to everyone legally now (Who is federally qualified to purchase firearms to begin with, passing the NICS check, etc.) (Except for the select states that outright ban it), you can get a transferable sub gun for just a couple of grand.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
SBR was put in place when they made handguns illegal. That way you could not cut down a rifle into a pistol. They lifted the handgun ban, and left the SBR ban. Just lame.

Maybe in your little area of jurisdiction.

Around here, handguns have always been legal.