Guns and Strippers thread! Best ever!
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="590523" data-time="1466582532">
<div>
<p>The same crimes committed by Omar Marteen before he went on his rampage.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So nothing. Basically you support family members of criminals being stripped of their constitutional rights? Shit. You support the government punishing people for having beliefs the government finds incorrect? Not to mention that this sort of law would stop a lot of Muslims from buying guns and would be seen as racist.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590536" data-time="1466586504">
<div>
<p>So nothing. Basically you support family members of criminals being stripped of their constitutional rights? Shit. You support the government punishing people for having beliefs the government finds incorrect? Not to mention that this sort of law would stop a lot of Muslims from buying guns and would be seen as racist.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Actually no, I support nobody being able to walk into a gun shop and being able to buy an assault rifle. I don't believe anybody has a constitutional right to buy an assault rifle. Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle. Sure, people may want them, but nobody NEEDS them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't bring racism, govt beliefs bullshit into it - I've never mentioned that, you've thrown this out there trying to steer this conversation that way, and nobody is making that point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regardless of whatever crap you are trying to make me say, a guy who had been investigated for suspected links to terrorism, a guy who had domestically abused his partner, walked into a shop and bought an assault rifle. That's just fucked.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And the fact that the law, and you hydro11, think that if Omar Marteen's brother walks into a gun shop today and says "Hi I'm Omar Marteen's brother, here's all my ID to prove it, I'd like to buy 10 assault rifles and 1,000 rounds of ammunition", then that's just fine and dandy too.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>FUBAR.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590536" data-time="1466586504">
<div>
<p>So nothing. Basically you support family members of criminals being stripped of their constitutional rights? Shit. You support the government punishing people for having beliefs the government finds incorrect? Not to mention that this sort of law would stop a lot of Muslims from buying guns and would be seen as racist.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Poop, I though he was being ironic. So I liked.... but yes... the way that proposed law was structured it made it incredibly easy to to ban certain groups.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thats the way it starts. Hopefully. It can only get more entertaining from here.</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="590537" data-time="1466587413">
<div>
<p>Actually no, I support nobody being able to walk into a gun shop and being able to buy an assault rifle. I don't believe anybody has a constitutional right to buy an assault rifle. Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle. Sure, people may want them, but nobody NEEDS them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't bring racism, govt beliefs bullshit into it - I've never mentioned that, you've thrown this out there trying to steer this conversation that way, and nobody is making that point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regardless of whatever crap you are trying to make me say, a guy who had been investigated for suspected links to terrorism, a guy who had domestically abused his partner, walked into a shop and bought an assault rifle. That's just fucked.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And the fact that the law, and you hydro11, think that if Omar Marteen's brother walks into a gun shop today and says "Hi I'm Omar Marteen's brother, here's all my ID to prove it, I'd like to buy 10 assault rifles and 1,000 rounds of ammunition", then that's just fine and dandy too.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>FUBAR.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Okay, let's go through it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Point 1: You support an assault weapons ban. That is okay. However, none of the four pieces of legislation voted down by the senate included a ban on assault weapons so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion. I'm not opposed to an assault weapons ban in principle. I should not that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was not regarded as successful by most non-partisan groups. Legislation that was successful (like the Australian gun buyback) was compulsory and would therefore be unconstitutional in the United States. I don't think anyone thinks that individuals should be able to keep a stock of grenades so I think we will acknowledge that people's right to own weapons as limitations. I don't in principle oppose that limitation including the ban of assault weapons. However, I understand it can be difficult to define these terms in laws. For instance, if you banned all semi automatic weapons you would ban most guns (this is what I have read, I do not claim to be an expert on makes and models of guns).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Point 2: These things are implied by the law you support. You support a law which allows the government to suspend the constitutional rights of its citizens. You support this process occurring through secretive list which people can be placed on for having committed no crimes. This is a list which individuals are not notified that they are on and have limited ways of getting off. You have claimed that one of the pieces of legislation makes it easier to get off the list, yet you have ignored my question as to how the legislation enabled that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given that you support all of the above what is to stop a government determining that other groups (say Conservatives) are more likely to commit acts of gun violence? What is to stop the government just adding people to the list who annoy them? If the list has no oversight then what is to stop the government from doing this? It's necessary to mention this because this is an obvious consequence of the law you support. I suppose the question is: how would you create a system of government oversight that would stop the government adding random people it didn't like to the list?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for profiling, it speaks for itself. How would you feel if you were an Arab, had committed no crimes and were stripped of a constitutional right? Of course, these people will assume the law is racist.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Point 3: I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'm just telling you what affect your policies would have.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you believe that people who are convicted of domestic abuse should not be able to buy guns? If someone like Tony Veitch wanted to go hunting with his mates, I wouldn't see a problem with that. This individual had been suspected of having links to terrorism but there was no evidence so nothing happened. You specifically mention that he shouldn't have been able to go and buy an assault weapon but I don't believe that distinction is important here. If he had bought a pistol, a lot of people still would have died. I'm not sure if you are saying that people suspected of terrorism shouldn't be able to buy assault weapons or shouldn't be able to buy guns at all.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Point 4: Well, now you are putting words into my mouth. Again, none of this legislation was about assault weapon bans so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I have never said I oppose an assault weapons ban but I have shown skepticism over whether or not it would work. I do think it is highly messed up for someone to have their constitutional rights affected by what members of their family do.</p> -
<p>Fair questions hydro, I'll answer them tomorrow as I'm leaving now for the day I'll say this though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I believe the govt has the right to stop people buying weapons on suspected links to terrorism.</p>
<p>I believe the govt has almost the obligation to stop people buying weapons who have firm links to terrorism.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When your brother has just committed the atrocity which happened in Orlando, then I think it's fair to say you have firm links to terrorism.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590541" data-time="1466589086">
<div>
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/niDMilgl.png" alt="niDMilgl.png"></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The one with the wooden stock can be turned into this by undoing a few screws</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://files.harrispublications.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2009/02/mini14-upgrade.gif" alt="mini14-upgrade.gif"></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/troys-mini-14-modular-chassis/'>http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/troys-mini-14-modular-chassis/</a></p> -
<p>So I understand that basically the difference between the two bills was that the Republicans wanted to introduce due process before someone gets banned from owning a gun. Democrats wanted to ban people from owning guns and then create an appeals process. I think it does show the brokenness of the Senate that they basically all voted along partisan lines on such similar bills. </p>
-
Those two rifles shown are different sizes and weights as well, which adds to their concealment options.<br><br>
There are heaps of variants for the AR-15 - size of stocks (some collapsible), barrel lengths, options for magazine or drum (some of which the M-14 shares).<br><br>
But yeah, you can mod the wooden one to be all sorts of things if you want.<br><br>
So, cool. Ban them both! -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590569" data-time="1466597526">
<div>
<p>So I understand that basically the difference between the two bills was that the Republicans wanted to introduce due process before someone gets banned from owning a gun. Democrats wanted to ban people from owning guns and then create an appeals process. I think it does show the brokenness of the Senate that they basically all voted along partisan lines on such similar bills. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Partly, it was also sort of the Republican bill had a check that was in reality no check. The 4 bills -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>First thats pretty much unworkable. They have 3 days to present the case to a judge & most of the time the case would be as with the Orlando guy. If you use that as a check he would have still got his gun</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IE that one actually makes it harder to ban the mentals. Fuck knows what his plan was there</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>That sounds like a good idea, but it had zero chance of getting Rep support as it puts all american gun owners on a database that will make it easier for Obama to come to their house in a black helicopter & kill them</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>That one sounds reasonable till, as you pointed out it basically says "we can ban anyone we want". Its the sort of thing that see's bollywood stars stopped at immigration cause their name is on the no fly list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it was "does nothing, does less than nothing, does something but no Rep will vote for it & does something but violates a lot of human rights"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Part of the lunacy now is the Dems put up bills they know the Reps will block so they can go "boo!" hoping that'll win them seats in the mid terms and the Reps put up bills that either do nothing or make it EASIER to get guns knowing the Dems will block so they can go "well, we tried!" helping them hold seats in the mid terms. Neither side has any actual motivation to put up a working bill.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="590554" data-time="1466594377">
<div>
<p>Would REALLY like to know the reasoning behind my post being deleted.<br><br>
Just PM me. I won't bite</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>FYI your posts are not deleted, they are hidden. Any mod can still see them.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="590602" data-time="1466626655">
<div>
<p>FYI your posts are not deleted, they are hidden. <strong>Any mod can still see them.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What about for the 3 of us who aren't mods? :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="590648" data-time="1466636135">
<div>
<p>What about for the 3 of us who aren't mods? :)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I thought i was the only one!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: Ah, so it's us three then</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="590602" data-time="1466626655">
<div>
<p>FYI your posts are not deleted, they are hidden. Any mod can still see them.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Nice dancing on a pinhead.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Didn't answer my question though. Not that I'm surprised.</p> -
<p>jesus it's high school all over again</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://cuddlebuggery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/breakdown.gif" alt="breakdown.gif"></p>