Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Tzar Lysergic

The Gun Control Thread

Recommended Posts

Guest Tzar Lysergic
You were the one talking about a gatling gun.

 

Historical purposes.

 

Have you ever seen a gatling gun? It would be utterly useless for self defense. It has to be ran around on wagon wheels, and operated with a crank or external motor. Modern ones are mounted on helicopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic
I think the implicit fear with gun shows is that they are prone to "straw purchasing", where somebody with legal standing makes a surrogate purchase of a gun for a potential felon. Straw purchasing is considered a felony, but that's a deterrent that's incurred after the fact - the felonious act has still taken place, as an indirect result of that surrogate purchase.

 

The same thing could happen at any weapons dealer, and I think they should throw the book at anyone who does that. Buying a gun and then giving it or selling to someone who legally cannot own one is far beyond any definition of responsibility.

 

I'm in no way advocating a complete lack of gun regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the implicit fear with gun shows is that they are prone to "straw purchasing", where somebody with legal standing makes a surrogate purchase of a gun for a potential felon. Straw purchasing is considered a felony, but that's a deterrent that's incurred after the fact - the felonious act has still taken place, as an indirect result of that surrogate purchase.

 

The same thing could happen at any weapons dealer, and I think they should throw the book at anyone who does that. Buying a gun and then giving it or selling to someone who legally cannot own one is far beyond any definition of responsibility.

 

Since I've never bought a gun, I guess I should ask the question - what procedural differences are there, if any, for buying a gun at a show vs. buying from a licensed weapons dealer? The impression that I get is that it's easier to get a gun at a show, either due to a more lax procedure or more lax enforcement and tracking overall (due to the sheer number of customers), but I'm not sure how much of that perception is actually driven by fact, rather than fear.

 

I'm in no way advocating a complete lack of gun regulation.

 

Oh, no worries there - just playing a little bit of devil's advocate on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic
However, it is on the cities and states not to send their cops into scenes where its a colt .45 or bretta glock vs a tech-9 or AR-15.

 

I hope people know that on the world market the AK-47(model 1963) is one of the cheapest guns on the market, for no more than 200 bucks and you can have one. So why do cops only have shotguns for back ups and not the also cheap M-16 or overpowerful M-14?

 

Ridiculous. Swat teams commonly have varieties of less-lethal weapons all the way through automatic .45 caliber submachineguns and .50 sniper rifles. Law enforcement and the military are armed far better than any criminal. Also, the guns you mentioned aren't being sold legally. Foreign automatic weapons were banned in 1968, and domestic production ended in 1986. I'm certain a pre-ban AK 47 would go for a LOT more than $200. Get a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic
Since I've never bought a gun, I guess I should ask the question - what procedural differences are there, if any, for buying a gun at a show vs. buying from a licensed weapons dealer? The impression that I get is that it's easier to get a gun at a show, either due to a more lax procedure or more lax enforcement and tracking overall (due to the sheer number of customers), but I'm not sure how much of that perception is actually driven by fact, rather than fear.

 

Mostly fear. Any FFL dealer has a strict set of regulations they have to adhere to, or else they get in deep doodoo. Given how these functions already make people nervous, I doubt it's uncommon for ATF guys to attend just to try to catch someone, as well as the local law enforcement. Not to mention the risk one would take by not following procedure closely, having the buyer do something ignorant with it, and then getting the gun traced back to them. Unless they're just blatantly breaking the law, I'd imagine organizers of the event would require all weapons on the premises to have the proper papers.

 

I've personally never bought a gun from a gun show, though I've attended a couple just to look at the beady eyed men with confederate army paraphrenalia. I ended up getting a nice little knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll need guns once the zombie apocalypse comes along, so I say no to gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were the one talking about a gatling gun.

Historical purposes.

 

Have you ever seen a gatling gun? It would be utterly useless for self defense. It has to be ran around on wagon wheels, and operated with a crank or external motor. Modern ones are mounted on helicopters.

Great, now we'll have to ban helicopters too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the "requirements for potent guns should be the same as potent automobiles," much like the weapons, high-performance models are usually pretty exclusive and many makers require buyers of certain models to complete driving courses, that is in the case of more mainstream high-end stuff like an M version of a BMW model. When it comes to super duper cars (Lambos, Paganis, Aston Martin, etc.), the companies are very picky about who gets to drive their product when there are cycles of 1,000 units or less. More powerful guns being regulated in a similar manner would be cool. Much like you can't stop someone from buying, say, a Camry and ramming it into a building at 100, it's difficult to cut down on irresponsible use of a gun that's common. Arguing over military-grade firearms is silly because there are so many lesser ones that are far easier to obtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the car argument is valid (though SMG brings up some good points).

 

A car is designed for transportation. A gun is designed to injure and kill either people or animals. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im actually for getting rid of the 2nd Ammendment since it has no more context in todays world as it did in the late 1700's America. The 2nd ammendment was based on the fact that early americans had to be worried about British/Indians/Wild Animals attacking them on a daily basis and with limited technology there weren't very many other ways to protect themselves. Today, theres no excuse to need a gun. Get an alarm sytem, get a pack of dogs, put up a fence..whatever..but you dont need a freaking gun to protect your property even if you're a bazillionaire with a house the size of Texas.

You are talking out of your ass. Who sold you this load of crap?

 

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not for self-defense, hunting, or target practice. It is a check on the government for the citizenry. It's pretty basic American history if you look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns aren't only made for killing or hurting people. I own one and don't plan on doing any of that if I can help it. I used to be captain of my school's rifle team, and rifle marksmanship is a big time hobby of mine. Besides, if it wasn't guns, people would just find some other way of killing somebody. If there is a will, there's a way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Im actually for getting rid of the 2nd Ammendment since it has no more context in todays world as it did in the late 1700's America. The 2nd ammendment was based on the fact that early americans had to be worried about British/Indians/Wild Animals attacking them on a daily basis and with limited technology there weren't very many other ways to protect themselves. Today, theres no excuse to need a gun. Get an alarm sytem, get a pack of dogs, put up a fence..whatever..but you dont need a freaking gun to protect your property even if you're a bazillionaire with a house the size of Texas.

You are talking out of your ass. Who sold you this load of crap?

 

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not for self-defense, hunting, or target practice. It is a check on the government for the citizenry. It's pretty basic American history if you look into it.

Stop making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eagle Man
Im actually for getting rid of the 2nd Ammendment since it has no more context in todays world as it did in the late 1700's America. The 2nd ammendment was based on the fact that early americans had to be worried about British/Indians/Wild Animals attacking them on a daily basis and with limited technology there weren't very many other ways to protect themselves. Today, theres no excuse to need a gun. Get an alarm sytem, get a pack of dogs, put up a fence..whatever..but you dont need a freaking gun to protect your property even if you're a bazillionaire with a house the size of Texas.

You are talking out of your ass. Who sold you this load of crap?

 

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not for self-defense, hunting, or target practice. It is a check on the government for the citizenry. It's pretty basic American history if you look into it.

Stop making sense.

Damn that television! What a bad picture!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fucking hate guns, personally. Like, not really a rational and reasoned response. More a knee-jerk physical revulsion to their sight outside of a shooting range. (which I enjoy). And I'm an NRA Marksman 1st Class with a rifle. (Yay Boy Scouts!)

 

That said, I only think two restictions are warranted. Restrictions on full-auto weapons, and requiring liscensing.

 

Anything beyond that is ludicrous, in my mind. Don't think so? Try to repeal the second amendment. Don't try pussy-footing around with this slippery slope bullshit. (and BTW, I'm not for repealing the 2nd amendment.)

 

Trigger locks are a good idea. A great idea, even, but they shouldn't be mandatory.

 

Also there should be specific gun ranges where people should be able to shoot .50 caliber beasts and shoot up derelict cars with mini-guns. Why the fuck not? I'm sure it'd be a blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic

I've always wanted to shoot .50 caliber, but it's so damn expensive, and I'd be willing to bet finding ammunition is a bitch. With good optics, accuracy at over 1,000-1,500 yards. That'd be wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always wanted to shoot .50 caliber, but it's so damn expensive, and I'd be willing to bet finding ammunition is a bitch. With good optics, accuracy at over 1,000-1,500 yards. That'd be wild.

I have a friend who has an AK-47 (or one of the reasonable facsimile models) and it costs like four dollars for fifteen rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic

Jesus, and that takes what, four seconds if you're aiming carefully and having fun with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go to the Middle East. They seem to have shells easily available over there. You'd probably trip over a few cases getting off your plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a liberal, I guess I am pretty gun-friendly. Besides full-on automatic machine guns or heavy artillary, and with background/criminal checks I can care less if someone wants to own a gun. I do though find it hilarious that a lot of conservatives scoff at liberals when they mention some of the potential authoritarian tendencies our government shows(especially lately), yet when it comes to gun rights they are the ABSOLUTE FIRST people to say, "we needs guns as a check on our government" It's like, "oh you mean that mean nasty government, you say if just a figment of people's imagination" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the wording of the second ammendment can be interpreted as "We need a check on our government...so logically, the citizenry need automatic weapons."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

 

That doesn't say anything about not being allowed to have certain guns.

 

That bolded part seems to get ignored quite a bit by the gun lobby.

 

The problem is that it also says the right of the people. So unless someone builds a time machine and talks to Thomas Jefferson, we will not know his full intent. Does he mean people in the militia(or State/National gaurd/armed forces) or the citizens can form their own militias and "clip up"?

 

And people allowed to have guns IS a check on the government. Let, lets just wildly and unbelievely say, Bush wanted to have his own "ultiamte solution" with blacks. The black citizens could change personal opinion with a barrel of a gun alot faster than Al Sharpton speeches.

 

Besides, I am sure the founding fathers couldn't grasp a gun firing more than 3 or 4 rounds per minute. Having anything that could go faster doesn't mean that it should be banned. And it doesn't mean we should all only be allowed shotguns and flint locks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic
I don't see how the wording of the second ammendment can be interpreted as "We need a check on our government...so logically, the citizenry need automatic weapons."

 

Again, and I hate to argue semantics, but you brought up "need." That shouldn't be a caveat to a civil right. If need were the only basis to civil liberties, there would be very few of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'll play 'conservative' on Mexicans, blacks, poor people, and kids, Invader, but you don't think Americans should be able to own whatever gun they choose? Bearing in mind what Agent has already said about how the only people who would be able to afford these bigger guns are the serious hobbyist with large bank accounts.

 

Are you really just a 'Leave it to Beaver utopian' with no foundation of small govt to your 'conservatism'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic

The entire gun control problem hinges on the illegal transactions of firearms. It's extremely obvious as evidenced by things like drugs that the lack of availabilty on the open market will do nothing to stop the black market trade. The gun-grabbing sect is fucking stupid.

 

(someone here has to think we should ban guns entirely; come out you bastard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you'll play 'conservative' on Mexicans, blacks, poor people, and kids, Invader, but you don't think Americans should be able to own whatever gun they choose? Bearing in mind what Agent has already said about how the only people who would be able to afford these bigger guns are the serious hobbyist with large bank accounts.

 

Are you really just a 'Leave it to Beaver utopian' with no foundation of small govt to your 'conservatism'?

 

No, I'm really not down on gun owners. I think there needs to be tight restrictions on who can buy guns, and things have to be registered, etc.

 

I just think the whole idea of second ammendment rights gets bandied about a lot with only really vague references to what it actually was intended to do. I think people should be able to own guns though, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The McCarthy Bill (from the other thread)

 

Me:

Absolutely idiotic and it's going to kill the Democrats out west if it passes. But, from what I've read, I don't think it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tzar Lysergic

I don't see how it can. As big as the gun lobby is, that's a really vague and sweeping ban to try to get past them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×