Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 12 of 22
Just another day in Wulfland:
< /just kidding fool >
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe you all are missing the point. Statistically, most people know the food that they are eating and are determined to eat it, buy whatever means necessary. If you take their spoons they'll just use forks and you just see more people getting forked up! Also, silverwere is a thing of the past, a relic. The founding fathers could have never anticipated the sandwiches and finger foods that are responsible for more fatness than all utensil related fatness combined?
Do we mean to do away with all finger foods now? What will we replace our sandwiches with? What will we tell our wives to make us? "Get in the kitchen and make me a... omolette?" Where does this madness end?
Peoples hands and mouths come in different sizes. Spoons make the serving sizes equal. If you ban spoons, you place the women, the children, the old and the infirm at the mercy of those with the biggest mouths, who by the way, could easily obtain silverware illegally. They do it all the time, I know this from watching procedurals like CSI and Law and Order.
God made men, spoons made them civilized.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky: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?"
.
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all. I don't want the kind of gun ownership that you guys have for where I live, but I'm not sure what you can do once the genie is out of the bottle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The Nagant revolver is the only revolver ever manufactured that can possibly be silenced. It fires the 7.62 Nagant round. Very odd round. The cylinder moves forward to seal the cylinder/barrel gap and prevent gas from escaping. But I'm pretty sure that the shape of the bullet and the odd caliber would be a dead giveaway."
Hello,
The Nagant was the specific Russian gas-sealed revolver I had in mind. Available for a hundred bucks in the current market. Keep in mind that the bullet is not what is uniquely shaped in the revolver. Rather, it is the long casing. Also remember that a .30 inch frangible projectile is not easily discernable from the much more common .32.
A .22 short is not a bad idea, but it requires you to get so close to the target, and it has such anemic power, that I think you'd be better off with a knife or bludgeon in that case. The .22 is so unpredictable a bullet. It can zig-zag, it can ricochet, and it can skirt right around the brainpan without touching the target. .22 wound-channels can be erratic both for good and for ill. Even if you do get the brain... Phineas Gage haunts my imagination.
However, you should feel free to have your imaginary villain use whatever means you prefer. ;-)
--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
Quote:
Do we mean to do away with all finger foods now? What will we replace our sandwiches with? What will we tell our wives to make us? "Get in the kitchen and make me a... omolette?" Where does this madness end?
It's an omelette you illiterate hillbilly! You can't even read, how could you possibly think for yourself? This is further proof that the only solution to this problem is increased government intervention. As a whole, people are just not responsible and can't be trusted. They need an intrusive government who has their best interest at heart. We should strive as a country to be more like England or Australia, even though my argument is based off of made up statistics in a place like China.
You must be AURaptors sock puppet!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Won't someone think of the children? Everyday they are eating with these big spoons and just getting fatter... its an epidemic of spoon fatness.
We at the Wulf Centre to Prevent Spoon Fatness support reasonable spoon control. But the National Spoon Association controls too much of the Congress.
We need your support, if we are ever to get reasonable spoon laws enacted.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Right, I knew you were talking about Australia.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all.
When I said, "You don't give to guns to insane people," I meant generic you, not Magonsdaughter you. I was talking about us not giving guns to insane people. Sorry that was confusing.
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:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Right, I knew you were talking about Australia.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all.
When I said, "You don't give to guns to insane people," I meant generic you, not Magonsdaughter you. I was talking about us not giving guns to insane people. Sorry that was confusing.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
That seems like a sane solution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"2) In case citizens need to revolt against an oppressive government.
Two important things have changed since the time of the FF's. Firstly, the firepower and technology of the state has increased dramatically. Small arms are not really an equaliser...
Also these days the world has discovered peaceful protest as an effective way of shutting down and unseating governments. With this as a viable option, it makes the idea of armed resistance criminally stupid - not just needlessly bloody, but counterproductive (like Hamas)."
Hello,
It continues to boggle my mind.
The U.S. is fighting a never-ending, resource-sapping war against largely disorganized people who are equipped with small-arms, small-explosives, and improvised weapons.
And yet the United States continues to be viewed as unopposeable by these same means.
I agree with the usefulness of peaceful protest, but I do not agree with the naivete' of discounting the alternative. An alternative which proves effective daily in bogging down the efforts and economy of our entire nation.
Afghanistan is slightly smaller than the state of Texas. There are ~438,000 allied troops there, plus the most advanced war machines in our arsenal. Surveillance is constant, and is of our most sophisticated variety. There are no real civil liberties there. We can and do shoot anyone if we even *think* they *might* be a terrorist. We have been fighting this war for over nine years, and have no clear expectation of victory. Allied forces there have suffered nearly 60,000 casualties.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
Hmm, well argued, I've probably been a little dismissive and unimaginative about the prospects of armed citizens' resistance in America. I do still find it hard to picture the scenario... Any government with a firm enough grip to quash mass protests/civil disobedience etc. (which I hope would be the first steps) - and then withstand the fallout from that, would also have a pretty firm grip on the military, and CIA, it seems to me. So you would have a determined and enthusiastic U.S military (assumedly stripped of most of its weak-willed/'traitorous' elements) waging war against U.S citizens who have taken up arms. As I say, it's hard for me to conjure the scenario, without resort to theories of government mass propaganda and military brain-washing, which I'm not a fan of...
But I'll concede, determined citizens with small arms most likely could resist with some effectiveness, in a kind of attritional guerilla campaign. It might be little more than nuisance value, I'm not sure (U.S citizens would likely not have some advantages that Iraqi/Afghan insurgents have had, like home advantage, poor infrastructure, safe havens/foreign backers in neighbouring countries, willing suicide bombers and tolerance of civilian casualties etc.)
So I wouldn't say citizen gun ownership is a vital barrier/obstacle to tyrannical government (there are others), nor a formidable one - but it is an obstacle, and has some deterrent value, so there is an argument for it. :-/
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't forget spoons.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME