Guns and Strippers thread! Best ever!
-
<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> -
<p>Ok, here we go.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590542" data-time="1466589585">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, my personal belief is that nobody needs to buy an assault rifle. I understand that people can have a great interest in them and maybe want to fire one, but I fail to see why anybody needs to own one. It's not relevant directly to the discussion about what was and what wasn't voted down, but it's showing you my position so I can't be accused of anything else later. I don't like guns, I never have. I respect other peoples decision to own and enjoy them, but not when it comes to things like this - similar to your thoughts on grenades.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590542" data-time="1466589585">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I didn't imply anything. This came directly from you, not me. You talk about these lists and them being secretive, but how do people get on them in the first place - you are defined by the company you keep, the communications you make and the things that you do. And yes, sometimes you may find yourself involved with things which you didn't directly had anything to do with. But we aren't talking about blocking a constitutional right to buy food, gain shelter, and clothing. We aren't even talking about things like buying a car, joining a gun club, or downloading hardcore porn. We are talking about your right to walk into a store, and buy the necessary tools to walk into a highly populated area and slaughter a large amount of innocent beings. You simply cannot compare basic constitutional rights when talking about buying a car vs buying weapons. And that is what each of the 4 bills which were voted down were about. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590542" data-time="1466589585">
<div>
<p> 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't believe anybody is on a list simply because they are an Arab. That is indeed, racis, but not relevant to this discussion.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590542" data-time="1466589585">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>No, my policy's would have nobody buying assault rifles. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, I 100% believe Tony Veitch should not be allowed to buy a weapon. Ever read his statements? Direct quote - "I lashed out". Imagine what could have happened if he lashed out when in his cupboard was an assault rifle capable of firing 10 bullets per second.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In my opinion, Marteen shouldn't have been able to buy a gun because he had been on these lists AND domestic abuse. I'm unwavering on this view, and honestly, not even sure why I need to defend it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590542" data-time="1466589585">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Granted, maybe I just implied that ... We will have to agree to disagree on the last sentence.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, lets look at the 4 laws which were rejected. Law 1:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>What is unreasonable and unconstitutional about this? People with mental health issues should be treated differently for gun purchases just like people with vision issues should be subject to different rules when buying a car license!</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">A second proposal to expand the background check system for those buying guns to require checks at gun shows and for online purchases went down 44-56</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm shocked that you can even buy a gun online, honestly.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Delay, not block. just DELAY. And then allow a judge to reside over final decison. Still can't see what is so contentious.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">And a Democratic option that sought to bar all gun sales to those individuals on the terror watch list failed 47-53, the second time the proposal went down to defeat after a mass shooting. </blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This seems to be what is causing the most contention between you and me hydro. I think I've dealt with this above, so we will have to agree to disagree.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="590515" data-time="1466579013">
<div>
<p>How were they making it easier to get off the No Fly List?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="590495" data-time="1466574587">
<div>
<p>There were 2 parts to it. 1. Restrict people on these lists from buying guns, 2. Make it easier for people to get off them.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'll retract this. As I misread, this is bill 5 which hasn't gone to vote yet. I'm sure though, it will get trashed.</p> -
<p>For the cutie cutie set: when you are having a party to reveal the gender of your unborn kid, there are party favours called Guns or Glitter.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Necklaces that say Guns (for a boy) and Glitter (for a girl), plus sweet little cutouts of guns or princess crowns.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Awwwww.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :puke: :Bang_Head:</p> -
<p>This story gave me BAD ALLERGIES.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/little-kids/81410011/mum-broke-down-when-she-found-out-why-her-little-girl-was-standing-on-the-toilet'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/little-kids/81410011/mum-broke-down-when-she-found-out-why-her-little-girl-was-standing-on-the-toilet</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>And then there are the comments, which just show how fucked America is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One woman: My kids do drills and think they are fun!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Jesus.</p>