By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones (Gun control debate goes awry...)

Tagged games:

 

Should there be more of a restricted Gun Control in the United States?

Yes 47 67.14%
 
No 23 32.86%
 
Total:70

watching that jones fool actually makes me furious. what a clown



Around the Network
yum123 said:
watching that jones fool actually makes me furious. what a clown


it was lunatic vs lunatic. a battle royale.



Mr Khan said:
Max King of the Wild said:
killerzX said:
Max King of the Wild said:
killerzX said:
Max King of the Wild said:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 


When I first saw it I said "oh i will just glance this over" surprisingly I ended up reading the entire things and agreeing with almost everything

 

Its mostly for kylie... anyway my favorite part

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…

Uh…

Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.” Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Simple: if it isn't a handgun and isn't expressly for the purpose of hunting, it's an assault weapon that nobody who doesn't want to foment rebellion has any legitimate business owning.


What about peope who want a rifle for target shooting?  Outside which we're talking about legislation with no scientific basis in fact, and which the slight scientific research points slighty AGAINST such legislation.

Your essentially asking for a law to restrict peoples rights, that science suggests won't effect anything, or if does have an effect, a very minor negative one to society....

 

because... I don't even know why.  Honestly I can't even understand why someone would want such legislation except for having an inherent bias against guns.



Ive got a question for gun folks. What is the argument against smaller clips, say 2-6 shots till you have to reload. Sure it wont stop criminals from getting banana clips, but it would help prevent lunatics with access to legal guns from shooting up places.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

CDiablo said:
Ive got a question for gun folks. What is the argument against smaller clips, say 2-6 shots till you have to reload. Sure it wont stop criminals from getting banana clips, but it would help prevent lunatics with access to legal guns from shooting up places.

You just answered your own question.  It won't prevent criminals from getting banana clips.  Hence it won't help prevent lunatic with access to legal guns from shooting up places.  They will just get ahold of said clips.

 

Meanwhile, your inconviencing hunters, targetshooters, and plenty of other people... for something that will have zero effect on anything.



Around the Network

CDiablo said:
Ive got a question for gun folks. What is the argument against smaller clips, say 2-6 shots till you have to reload. Sure it wont stop criminals from getting banana clips, but it would help prevent lunatics with access to legal guns from shooting up places.





Kasz216 said:
 

because... I don't even know why.  Honestly I can't even understand why someone would want such legislation except for having an inherent bias against guns.

I think I see why Khan might be afraid of the ability to own such weapons considering his political philosophies, but his view is intertwined with stereotypes. He's assuming that all or most lawful gun owners who don't want infringement on the second ammendment, and want such protection from the government are lunatic conspiracy theorists or racist white supremacists who are on the far right of the economic spectrum and who would like an overthrow of the current government to be replaced with one kind to their philosophies. This certainly must be frightening, but of course it's not aligned very well in facts. Most lawful gun owners are good people who don't want their freedoms, liberties, and rights taken away. Yes they might be enthusiastic about a hobby, but it's their right to happiness to enjoy life however they want it and they (as well as I - and admittingly I don't even own a gun, although I plan to) feel that guns help secure not only the freedom to own a gun, but other freedoms as well. My grandparents have rifles, of various types for hunting, including some of these "assault rifles" and they're economic moderate-leftists with a basis in contracting unions. When it comes to this matter, they view federal gun laws not only as restrictive, but unecessary, seeing as that most people in their small town live with guns, but you can count on your fingers how many people die per decade by homicide in such a small town. I think it's just a predjudice of gunowners really.



killerzX said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture.

wow....anti-constitutionalist?  you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you?



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 said:

wow....anti-constitutionalist?  you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you?

And go through a whole lot of trouble to make people think they're not made up words. Crafty!





Runa216 said:
killerzX said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture.

wow....anti-constitutionalist?  you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you?

What'd'ya mean? The people who did coin these terms have had a history of not only disregarding the second amendment, but the other ones as well. Diane Feinstein for example, argued against the amendments to the FISA legislation this past December, which would make the government more accountable to the fourth amendment. They'd be quite happy if the constitution was revised to give them more power. Not to blame them though, that's the natural progression, and the federal government is inherently against a constitution which doesn't give them the power they want. Hence, they're "anti-constitutionalist."