Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 8 of 22
A gun draws a lot of attention though. It depends on whether you're looking at a one time thing, or a long string of murders.
The right tool for the job, you know.
/intentionally trying to be disturbing
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
For murder, I think the ideal would be a silenced revolver.
The Russians made a revolver with a gas seal that could do the job. You can buy it used.
You need to make your own silencer, though.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, but it's easier to trace a bullet than it is specific knife wounds. You can do it, depth and the type of cut can be dependent on the length and type of blade, but that's different from being able to know right away that such bullet came from such and such model of gun.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
A murderer using frangible bullets might get around that problem. It's all a matter of technology.
No intact bullet. No shell casing. No noise. Plus you have the ability to engage your target at range.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hoo boy, lotsa posts - imma have to go down the line here from where I last posted...
This might be a bit long, bear with me, please.
Pizmo, I get where you're coming from, how could I not given my primary focus is on removing or reforming the social structures and instituions which leave folk so terribly broken that it makes em dangerous in the first place - but till we come a lot further along in that respect, I am not convinced reducing our ability to apply force in our defense is any kind of good idea.
Rather, I favor by reducing the introduction of broken dangerous people, by heaving our society further in a sane direction via not breaking folk in the first place, removing a lot of the NEED for that force, at which point folk will make their own choices, and even so you're gonna have holdouts who are unable to change their ways, till new generations replace em - this isn't a knee-jerk, quick-fix kinda thing, and any attempt to make it so just makes it that much worse, a band-aid on a bullet wound, see ?
To continue the medical analogy here, the fact that too much use of antibiotics is bad for you, does not necessarily mean that taking them for an infection is a bad idea - but once the infection is gone, THEN, and only then, does the former start having meaning.
We gotta reduce the nuttery before any notion of reducing personal weaponry carrying, cause to do the latter without the former is just... askin for it.
Magons, I am indeed all for the disbandment of our military, it's bloody useless in our defense, a vaccum that sucks up and wastes tremendous resources, and is as you say, a very font of tyranny and aggression, often needlessly so in order to justify it's own existence - and don't even get me started on the fact that we now have them stationed here in the states, on active duty, with the idea of pacifying *US* as their potential mission.
Our founders would be shitting bricks over that, were they still kickin.
Wasn't never the thought of our military that ever kept us from being invaded so much as that they'd get cut to ribbons before they reached the nearest walmart by the crazy-assed populace, not to mention our very culture would drive them completely batshit insane within a month, most of em.
And one of the things about weapon-injury that you mention also drives me to the wall, in that most people have piss-poor concepts of weapon safety and handling, something which COULD be rectified by a competence certification requirement similar to a drivers license for a car, but BY NO MEANS would I want that in the hands of Government when they have already proven beyond any doubt via extensive and ongoing abuse of CCW permit laws that they utterly cannot be trusted with it, more I would make it a condition of sale in exchange for dealer/manufacturer immunity from lawsuit.
I'd rather someone have the training without the weapon, than the weapon without the training, that for a fact.
Hell, I wouldn't mind making the training part of citizenship, with exemptions for those who have religious, moral or philosophical objections.
Funny thing about it, is that I own a weapon that really *does* have no purpose beyond the ability to engage and demolish a superior force, being wholly designed for that explicit purpose to begin with, and it is a thing properly regarded with horror at even the notion it would ever see use, even and especially by me.
But it's mere *presence* in my home, in my possession, has in several cases prevented aggression on me by local authories, corrupt or misguided (never more so than in the city council fiasco) - this has been flatly admitted by two local police depts, including the county where I now reside, although that conversation may well have been tongue in cheek to some extent - he did tell me that if they had to serve a warrant they'd call me and do so during normal business hours instead of kicking in the door and going gonzo with it cause I might otherwise be half-asleep and react aggressively, with that.. *thing*(1), in my hands.
So one can definately mak
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And some large, seedy looking fellow comes up to you and asks "You flush man ? You got cash on ya, how much ?"
Ok, clarification, for those unfamiliar with american law enforcement...
They DO ask this question, usually phrased as "Are you carrying large sums of cash on your person or in your vehicle, sir?" - as a prelude to then seizing that money under the thin fiction that it's drug money via asset forfeiture laws, which are terribly abused by most departments as an official form of theft/extortion/tribute.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket
In fact, the wayne county PD did this over the holiday season, declaring the parking lots of walmarts a "known drug trafficking zone" then jumping folk en route to do holiday shopping and seizing their money - bastards were completely unashamed and unrepentant about it too, even going so far as to jokingly call it "Holiday Shopping" - heaven knows how many families had their Xmas ruined that way.
Mind you, I am still really, REALLY pissed about that, especially in light of mayor Bing firing op public safety and fire department officials for revealing that the police have sucked up so much of the public safety budget that the EMT and Fire Departments can no longer even respond effectively.
http://detnews.com/article/20100916/METRO08/9160409/Paramedics-fear-th
ey-re-losing-the-battle-to-save-lives
(Worth a note, even the two EMTs who spoke up were retaliated against.)
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7339075-two-medics-exposed-d
etroit-ems-suspended-city-council-wants-to-know-why
Anyhows, comes down to this...
End of the day, does it really MATTER that the person who threatened you with a gun and took your money was wearing a badge or not ?
Because either way the result is the same.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Point well taken. Yes, when guerilla warfare wins, they don't often win alone. Even the Americans had the French.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's more complicated than that.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me too. I want US citizen militias to replace the military, not just hang out in the woods and train for fun.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... but I like the idea of militias. I'd probably prefer the Swiss model to that of the US, however.
Think of all the lives that would be saved. Sigh.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL How true. How true.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Wasn't never the thought of our military that ever kept us from being invaded so much as that they'd get cut to ribbons before they reached the nearest walmart by the crazy-assed populace, not to mention our very culture would drive them completely batshit insane within a month, most of em.
Quote:You said it so much better than I did.
However, like a nuclear weapon, it doesn't exist to be *used*, but rather to present a threat so potent as to make negotiation preferable -
That is why a pacifist would support weapons hoarding. Because when one side is NOT overwhelmingly better armed than another side, when we achieve a sort of power equilibrium, people talk instead of shoot.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think this is a very good point. You don't want to give guns to insane people.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe we have incredibly disfunctional relationships, I'm not sure. I think that gun ownership in these circumstances would make things worse, not better as people who are demonstrating an incredible lack of control in conflict situations would have access to deadlier weapons than they already do.
But the solution is not to take away guns. It is to make those people sane.
One might advocate taking away guns first, temporarily, and returning them when the people are sane. However, while the first is relatively easy, the second is overwhelmingly difficult. Once the first is done, why do the second?
However, if you leave the guns in the hands of the insane, you have a huge incentive now to cure their insanity, which is ultimately the true root of violence. And you'd want to do it as quickly as possible.
When shooting tragedies happen, the first question we need to ask is, "How do we prevent young men and women from going crazy like that?"
Quote:Like Anthony, I find it commendable you have taken the time and effort to see this point of view. It is the most important one, one that even many gun-toting Americans can't wrap their heads around.
I have no time for the guns for self defence argument, but I can see the point of guns against tyranny.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME