Here it is the libs are coming after our guns

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 18 of 22

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.

Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as to
Quote:
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.

Hello,

I find some of your reasoning bizarre, Niki.

A prepared attacker with good knowledge of his weapon and the situation is the least likely to need lots of firepower. The definition of this sort of attacker would be a 'sniper' who has intimate knowledge of his surroundings, threat forces, weapon, and target.

The less prepared you are, the less in-command of your situation, your surroundings, your threats, and your weapon- then the MORE firepower you need to compensate for these shortcomings.

Firefights are exceedingly rare. Usually a gunfight is over within moments and takes place at extremely close range. However, in the unlikely event that a firefight should materialize (indicating that both the attacker and defender are taking advantage of surroundings and terrain to provide cover and/or concealment) I can not think of a situation where I would not prefer to have equal or greater firepower than my opponent.

You simultaneously assert that the illegal antagonist will be able to get the highest capacity arms via the black market, and then claim that since he has an inherent advantage (what I would call the 'initiative') it is pointless for the defender to have equal firepower.

So, you advocate policies to ensure that the illegal antagonist is the only person who will ever be able to acquire such arms, taking the hobbled defender (who lacks the initiative) and kneecapping him further by denying him an arms parity.

"How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference?"

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. I am not convinced you have even a rudimentary grasp of the technology of firearms, nor any firm idea of where you want to place limits or why. It seems that you are feeling your way through the issue, seeking compromises that feel emotionally like they might do some good.

A similar amount of well-intentioned 'feeling' and ignorance of detail was the building-block for this nation's last assault weapons ban, including its arbitrary limitations on magazine size and firearm appearance.

I do not own any weapon that would be touched by such a ban. None of my firearms would suffer from limited magazine sizes or 'scary looking gun' laws. However, I am not blind to the possibility of people having legitimate use for such

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:26 PM

Quote:
Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker

Niki, if this were the case, no army would be able to hold position, and a machine gun nest would be worthless.

If magazines are common and easy to get, then I don't understand your point about an attacker having greater access to them.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:49 PM

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1293

"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.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:06 PM

Ron Paul WIN!

(and since I agree and support RP.. I guess I WIN too.)

lol

"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.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
What did these folks get prison time for?

One person went for turning an antique weapon into an illegal weapon. He restores antique guns as a hobby. He was asked to falsely testify against one of his clients on the same charge. He refused. So they charged him with it.

The others (4 persons) went for failure to file income tax returns. They were tax protesters. One is a physician; he got 5 years. One got 7 years in prison. When he got out after serving his sentence, they charged him with failure to report to someone, and he went back in for another 7 years. He recently died in prison.

Quote:

I honestly think your past - I mean holy shite you lived in 4 of these places - has completely and understandably made you a bit hyper when it comes to this subject.

Yes, I agree. But let me explain. The hypervigilance wasn't always there.

When I lived in those places, we had to be VERY careful what we said. It is feeling of self-censorship that never relaxes. Now for 20 years in the USA, I've splurged and indulged myself in this haven of free expression. And I've loved it.

But the last 2 or 3 years, I'm starting to see signs of the kind of place where I grew up. I get that same feeling of self-censorship again, that I need to be careful. It's a reflex; the hypervigilance has come back because I feel the threat has crept back.

Obviously, I'm still spouting my mouth here on FFF, but my inner cautious self is telling me to stop. The only reason I don't is because I'm still in denial about my spidey sense going off.

Quote:
I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others?

Good question. Tyranny is the extreme end of political, economic, and moral control of a population by a elite group of persons who are themselves notably ungoverned.

1. Physical consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Unapproved speech is illegal. Fines, prison, death, torture, death of loved ones even.

2. No democracy. No practical ability to change government policies. Sometimes they have a nominal process for change, but they erect obstacles that are prohibitive. In extreme situations, voting is simply a surveillance device to find out who is against the govt.

3. Control of common items (such as clothing and electronics) through excessive taxation or outright bans. In a tyranny, there is usually a thriving black market selling common household goods.

4. Corruption. Enforcement of the law does not depend on the law, but luck, personal wealth, race, and social status. Bribes are not only routine; the society wouldn't be able to function without them. Everyone would be in prison if it weren't for bribes.

5. Rigorous standards for morality that are enforced with harsh physical consequences. This can be anywhere from caning for littering to prison for possessing alcohol to death/torture for actual crimes. Tyrannical societies are VERY safe, clean, and orderly.

Those are just 5 common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head.

Incidentally, Peru is NOT one of the tyrannical places where I have lived. One of the reasons I like it here is because there is MORE freedom here than in the USA. I tell Peruvians what goes on in the USA, and they are aghast with horror.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:16 PM

CTS:

Standing against the tide.

Good job.

Damn. We need more folks to finally do that.

"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.

HARDWARE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."

Hello,

This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.

All I said was the lack of hard capital in the form of loans would force the government to go on a crash diet. That diet can come from having plenty of worthless money in the coffers, or little or no still viable money in the coffers. Do you really want to argue the mechanism? Or is this just a nitpick?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
One person went for turning an antique weapon into an illegal weapon. He restores antique guns as a hobby. He was asked to falsely testify against one of his clients on the same charge. He refused. So they charged him with it.

The others (4 persons) went for failure to file income tax returns. They were tax protesters. One is a physician; he got 5 years. One got 7 years in prison. When he got out after serving his sentence, they charged him with failure to report to someone, and he went back in for another 7 years. He recently died in prison.

I'm sorry about your friend. Not knowing the details it's hard to judge but the last scenario… the IRS is well known for being the least forgiving and the closest thing to pure evil there is in a government agency… it's just hard to feel too much sympathy for their stance.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Tyranny is the extreme end of political, economic, and moral control of a population by a elite group of persons who are themselves notably ungoverned.

1. Physical consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Unapproved speech is illegal. Fines, prison, death, torture, death of loved ones even.

2. No democracy. No practical ability to change government policies. Sometimes they have a nominal process for change, but they erect obstacles that are prohibitive. In extreme situations, voting is simply a surveillance device to find out who is against the govt.

3. Control of common items (such as clothing and electronics) through excessive taxation or outright bans. In a tyranny, there is usually a thriving black market selling common household goods.

4. Corruption. Enforcement of the law does not depend on the law, but luck, personal wealth, race, and social status. Bribes are not only routine; the society wouldn't be able to function without them. Everyone would be in prison if it weren't for bribes.

5. Rigorous standards for morality that are enforced with harsh physical consequences. This can be anywhere from caning for littering to prison for possessing alcohol to death/torture for actual crimes. Tyrannical societies are VERY safe, clean, and orderly.

Those are just 5 common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head.

Incidentally, Peru is NOT one of the tyrannical places where I have lived. One of the reasons I like it here is because there is MORE freedom here than in the USA. I tell Peruvians what goes on in the USA, and they are aghast with horror.

You tell Peruvians how bad it is here and yet none of the 5 things you list for Tyranny is happening here? You've lived in 4 countries other than the US, all during an armed revolt, and yet you tell your friends how bad it is here? I don't get it, what's up with that? Seems out of proportion. Maybe you over idealized the US at one time?
I appreciate your list, thanks - it's a good answer. It's also the first time anyone's explained what they fear when they say they fear Tyranny.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

HARDWARE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.

Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as to
Quote:
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.

I really hate killing an innocent theory, but you know that the rule of thumb for offense to defense is a 2/1 majority? Attack is always more difficult than defense.

How do you figure that an attacker gains advantage by a large capacity magazine and a defender does not? If you're firearm is in battery and has ammo in the magazine, you're still in the fight. The only thing stopping the defensive shooter in Tuscon was his responsibility. If the laws were structured differently, or if he had made another choice we might be arguing about the motivations of the deceased attacker.

Assuming I have a Glock 19 or 17 for a primary defensive carry piece, after the 17 or 15 in the primary magazine, do you want a reload with 15, 17 or 33? If I've expended 17 and still have active opposition, guess which one I want?

You also completely dismiss suppressive fire. I'm expending rounds to keep your head down so I or others on my team can move to a position with greater advantage. Either to neutralize you, or effect our escape.

Picking nits about the capabilities of various weapons is pointless. The cat is out of the bag on firearms.

As I have said before, skill can make even the least objectionable firearm world class. Witness this video of Jerry Miculek.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You tell Peruvians how bad it is here and yet none of the 5 things you list for Tyranny is happening here?

Tyranny is extreme. The USA is not at that extreme. But not being pure evil doesn't mean it isn't flirting with the dark side. Freedom exists on a continuum. The USA is just a bit farther down that continuum in many areas than is Peru.

Quote:
You've lived in 4 countries other than the US, all during an armed revolt,

Oh, no. Only one during an armed revolt. The other 3 got better when when the autocrats died.

Quote:
and yet you tell your friends how bad it is here? I don't get it, what's up with that? Seems out of proportion. Maybe you over idealized the US at one time?

Certainly there is a bit of over-idealization of the USA in all immigrants. That is why many of us come to the States, for the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

But it isn't that. There isn't tyranny in the USA right now, but there isn't freedom either. So to my friends here who live more freely, I tell them what the "land of the free" is really like. They are curious, because we have this reputation for freedom, you know? So I tell them how it really is, that we aren't as free as people think. You don't have to be completely tyrannical to be not-free.

Here are some of the things I tell them about:

1. You can't start a small business without getting all the appropriate permits, which all cost money. (Peruvians can start businesses like kids did lemonade stands in the old days. They just put out a table or a sign and do it.)

2. You are taxed 25-35% on the average of all the money you make. (Peruvians don't pay taxes unless their business income exceeds a certain threshold, and then a much smaller percentage like 5-10%. There are no personal income taxes at all.)

3. You can't sell food unless you get health inspections, and now you can't grow food to sell unless you pass inspections. (There are no health inspections in Peru that I know of.)

4. You can't hire people for whatever wage you agree on. You have to pay them a minimum of what the govt says. (Peruvians have no minimum wage or labor laws.)

5. You can't put 2 adults and 3 kids on a motorcycle or ride without helmets. You can't put more than one person per car seat or ride without seatbelts. You can't even ride a bike without a helmet. (Peruvians can travel however they want. Drivers are supposed to be licensed, and people in the front are supposed to have seatbelts, but that rarely gets enforced.)

6. Some schools have cops there to give tickets to kids. A kid was arrested for using a Sharpie in school. (Peruvian adults don't even get tickets, it is hard for them to imagine children getting them, and for such ridiculous, victimless offenses as mere disobedience or truancy.)

7. You can't fly on an airplane without being radiated or groped. (Peruvian airports have the standard metal detector and very friendly security personnel.)

8. The govt can take your kids away just because someone accused you. Then you have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get them back if you can prove you didn't abuse them. (Insert horror story here.)

9. If cops catch you with a lot of cash, they can take that cash from you for no reason, even if you didn't commit a crime. Then it takes many months or even years and lawyers to get it back.

10. If you don't file taxes you go to jail. If you don't pay your fines, you go to jail. If you don't pay your child support, you go to jail.

11. 2.3 million Americans, or 0.75% of the US population, live in prison, the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The trade-off, I tell them, is that the American people believe they are safer and less likely to die than Peruvians. The question of tyranny always comes down to a freedom vs. security/cleanliness/order trade-off.

But the ones I talk to, they would rather be more free than more secure. My kind of people. Americans used to be that way, but not very much anymore.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE