Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Colorado Shooting and...Follow

#52 Jul 22 2012 at 5:59 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,814 posts
Kakar wrote:
Sorry, I don't think all that uber training you get in that class is enough, as others have said it's not all that involved. Mostly it's just training about the particulars of where you can and can't carry a concealed weapon. I know, I looked into it and nearly signed up for a class last year.


I'm sure that training doesn't have a scenario of "crazed maniac enters room with gas". Unless you're signing up for some Men in Black, super secret squirrel stuff.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#53 Jul 22 2012 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,856 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kakar wrote:
Sorry, I don't think all that uber training you get in that class is enough, as others have said it's not all that involved. Mostly it's just training about the particulars of where you can and can't carry a concealed weapon. I know, I looked into it and nearly signed up for a class last year.


I'm sure that training doesn't have a scenario of "crazed maniac enters room with gas". Unless you're signing up for some Men in Black, super secret squirrel stuff.


Taco Bell is deadly. More people need to be trained to defend against it.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#54 Jul 22 2012 at 6:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
And for the record, my sister was good friends with one of the Navy guys who didn't make it out of that theater, so @#%^ you piece of sh*t liberals for turning this into a damn gun control talking point..


Fact: Lower capacity magazines would have lowered the casualty count.
Fact: The expiration of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 is the only reason he could buy an AR-15 assault rifle.
Fact: Liberals did nothing about either of the above after Giffords was shot, no need to worry they might do something now.
Fact: You are a turd.


You could still buy AR-15s before the assault weapons ban lapsed, there were certain mag restrictions but those could pretty easily be overcome. I haven't used the automatic model, but mostly because you're going to get better performance out of the semi anyway. The only things that are regulated about this particular rifle by the AWB were bayonet lugs, pistol grip, and high cap mags.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#55 Jul 22 2012 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Raolan wrote:
I agree that lower capacity mags and heavy restrictions should be placed on assault rifles
I'm just baffled that it is at all possible for anyone to buy an assault rifle. The only @#%^ing thing it's made to do is shoot people, let's keep that with the military whose job includes shooting people when necessary. It's not a weapon for hunting nor is it any good at defending your home with unless you're expecting the zombie apocalypse to happen anytime now.


Sport shooting, and leverage against an oppressive gov't are the tradition reasons they are available in the US.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#56 Jul 22 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,035 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Raolan wrote:
I agree that lower capacity mags and heavy restrictions should be placed on assault rifles
I'm just baffled that it is at all possible for anyone to buy an assault rifle. The only @#%^ing thing it's made to do is shoot people, let's keep that with the military whose job includes shooting people when necessary. It's not a weapon for hunting nor is it any good at defending your home with unless you're expecting the zombie apocalypse to happen anytime now.


Sport shooting, and leverage against an oppressive gov't are the tradition reasons they are available in the US.


I own quite a number of guns. Mostly rifles and shotguns. Not for hunting. Though many in my family hunt, which is why I started shooting as a child, I don't hunt myself. Not due to some anti-hurting animals belief, but mainly because it's just a lot of work for very little useable meat, which in the end doesn't really taste the greatest. I really don't see a reason to have fully automatic assault rifles (and even handguns, but that's another story) available to the general public.

And I don't see how private stockpiles of even Assault Rifles would be leverage against the current government and its armed forces.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#57 Jul 22 2012 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
You could still buy AR-15s before the assault weapons ban lapsed, there were certain mag restrictions but those could pretty easily be overcome.

I need my 100-round drum.

You know, in case I'm attacked by a hundred deer...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jul 22 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,035 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
You could still buy AR-15s before the assault weapons ban lapsed, there were certain mag restrictions but those could pretty easily be overcome.

I need my 100-round drum.

You know, in case I'm attacked by a hundred deer...


Damn, 100% accurate one shot kills.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#59 Jul 22 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I spent a lot of time in Team Fortress 2. I'm pretty sure I could pull it off.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jul 22 2012 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
So, what I'm hearing is you'll wear several hats. I'm not sure that will help your accuracy.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#61 Jul 22 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,500 posts
Raolan wrote:
I agree that lower capacity mags and heavy restrictions should be placed on assault rifles, but banning guns in general will only change the places people buy them from.


That's just it. Most of us who advocate for gun control are not advocating for a total ban on guns. We don't really feel the need to emulate Japan in that respect (where the tourists love to go to shooting ranges in Hawaii since they can't do that at home.) We just feel that there are reasonable limits to the 2nd amendment that ought to be enforced. My family has a long tradition of hunting, and I have no qualms about guns being kept around for the sport, or for folks who have a hobby of target practice. Both my mother and my sister were sharpshooters, the former in the Army and the latter in her ROTC days, and they were proud of their skills.

But my mother would have called anyone who demanded a 100 round cartridge so they didn't have to refill at the shooting range a lazy git, and that is the only legitimate reason for a civilian to have a 100 round cartridge.

Military grade guns, weapons that are made for fighting wars, should not be sold to any Joe-blow off the street. Period.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#62 Jul 22 2012 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Drum mags aren't for accuracy training. You can empty one in ~7 secs if you have a modded AR.

____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#63 Jul 22 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd heard that the drum was illegal to purchase in Colorado but I'm not sure about other states. Or if its ownership itself was illegal in CO or merely the purchase.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Jul 22 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,814 posts
Tirith wrote:
And I don't see how private stockpiles of even Assault Rifles would be leverage against the current government and its armed forces.
____________________________


Mainly because it isn't. The argument that the US can recreate the "Revolutionary War" with common Joe is asinine. With all of the military fire power and UN support that we have today, if it ever gets to the point where we are relying on some common guy with his rifle to defend the US, then we are already so far lost that the more probable downsides of owning the weapons severely outweigh that aforesaid scenario.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#65 Jul 22 2012 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Tirith wrote:
And I don't see how private stockpiles of even Assault Rifles would be leverage against the current government and its armed forces.
____________________________


Mainly because it isn't. The argument that the US can recreate the "Revolutionary War" with common Joe is asinine. With all of the military fire power and UN support that we have today, if it ever gets to the point where we are relying on some common guy with his rifle to defend the US, then we are already so far lost that the more probable downsides of owning the weapons severely outweigh that aforesaid scenario.

Holy crap I agree with something Alma said.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#66 Jul 22 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,814 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I spent a lot of time in Team Fortress 2. I'm pretty sure I could pull it off.

You mean "online fantasy games"...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#67 Jul 22 2012 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Tirith wrote:
And I don't see how private stockpiles of even Assault Rifles would be leverage against the current government and its armed forces.
____________________________


Mainly because it isn't. The argument that the US can recreate the "Revolutionary War" with common Joe is asinine. With all of the military fire power and UN support that we have today, if it ever gets to the point where we are relying on some common guy with his rifle to defend the US, then we are already so far lost that the more probable downsides of owning the weapons severely outweigh that aforesaid scenario.


You don't need to win against the whole US army. Strategic arms wouldn't be deployed, and realistically it's more of a deterant against doing something like dissolving the representative branches.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2012 4:33pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#68 Jul 22 2012 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,296 posts
My personal favorite defense gun has always been a Beretta Jetfire In 22 Short. I have carried it for many years, including while hiking. I never leave without it in my pocket.

Of course the first rule when hiking in the wilderness is to use the "Buddy System." This means you NEVER hike alone; You bring a friend, companion, or family member because if something happens there is someone to go get help.

I remember one time while hiking with my best friend in northern Alberta and out of nowhere came this huge brown bear charging us and, boy, was she mad. We must have been near one of her cubs. Anyway, if I had not had my little Jetfire I would not be here today. Just one shot to my friend's knee cap was all it took. The bear got him and I was able to escape by just walking at a brisk pace.

It's one of the best pistols in my collection.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Jul 22 2012 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Raolan wrote:
I didn't hear about the shotgun or Glock being fired, only that he had them.

From today's news...
Quote:
The semiautomatic assault rifle, which is akin to an AR-15 and is a civilian version of the military’s M-16, could fire 50 to 60 rounds per minute, and is designed to hold large ammunition clips. Holmes allegedly had obtained a 100-round drum magazine that attached to the weapon, the source said, but that such large magazines are notorious for jamming.

The law enforcement official said authorities believe Holmes first used the shotgun — some victims in the hospital have buckshot wounds — and then began using the assault rifle, which jammed. Then he resorted to the handgun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/explosives-removed-from-james-holmess-apartment-and-destroyed-officials-say/2012/07/22/gJQAL9XN2W_story.html
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Jul 22 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,814 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Tirith wrote:
And I don't see how private stockpiles of even Assault Rifles would be leverage against the current government and its armed forces.
____________________________


Mainly because it isn't. The argument that the US can recreate the "Revolutionary War" with common Joe is asinine. With all of the military fire power and UN support that we have today, if it ever gets to the point where we are relying on some common guy with his rifle to defend the US, then we are already so far lost that the more probable downsides of owning the weapons severely outweigh that aforesaid scenario.


You don't need to win against the whole US army. Strategic arms wouldn't be deployed, and realistically it's more of a deterant against doing something like dissolving the representative branches.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2012 4:33pm by Timelordwho


That's not a good deterrent... Dissolving enough of the US military (Army,Navy,Marines,AF,Coast Guard), local police, other DOD units (i.e. SWAT) and UN ally nations will take much more than Joe carrying a rifle.

The only benefit of having that rifle is attacking someone else with equal or less fire power.

lolgaxe wrote:
My personal favorite defense gun has always been a Beretta Jetfire In 22 Short. I have carried it for many years, including while hiking. I never leave without it in my pocket.

Of course the first rule when hiking in the wilderness is to use the "Buddy System." This means you NEVER hike alone; You bring a friend, companion, or family member because if something happens there is someone to go get help.

I remember one time while hiking with my best friend in northern Alberta and out of nowhere came this huge brown bear charging us and, boy, was she mad. We must have been near one of her cubs. Anyway, if I had not had my little Jetfire I would not be here today. Just one shot to my friend's knee cap was all it took. The bear got him and I was able to escape by just walking at a brisk pace.

It's one of the best pistols in my collection.


I was about to suggest that. Good thing I finished reading first.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#71 Jul 23 2012 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Once again liberals prove they have no shame or class.

Once again you remind us what an imbecile you are. In addition, we get to see what a thoughtless imbecile you are.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#72 Jul 23 2012 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Still catching up with this thread, so forgive me hitting points as I go along:

Omegavegeta wrote:
Fact: Lower capacity magazines would have lowered the casualty count.


Very questionable. The one fact we can ascertain from his use of a 100 round drum (assuming that was the case) was that he didn't know squat about high capacity magazines. He went for the cool factor rather than the efficiency factor. Anyone who's ever actually used those (with non-military weapons), knows that they jam pretty consistently if you're foolish enough to actually put more than about 60-70% of the magazine capacity worth of bullets in them. Which appears to be exactly what happened to him and likely prevented the death tool from being more like 100+

If he'd really wanted to just kill a ton of people rather than fulfill an image-fantasy of himself he'd have brought a number of lower capacity magazines and reloaded.

Quote:
Fact: The expiration of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 is the only reason he could buy an AR-15 assault rifle.


Um... To the degree that mattered though. The problem with that ban (as I argued waaaaay back in the day) was that it didn't actually define what an assault weapon was (not surprising when you consider what they were trying to do). Thus, they just banned a list of weapons by name. Predictably, the manufacturers just sold the exact same guns (with perhaps minor cosmetic changes) under a different name. The law was allowed to expire because it was silly and useless.


Um... But even if somehow magically we passed a ban that made it impossible for him to obtain any sort of firearm with which he could possibly kill a bunch of people in a crowded theater (basically impossible unless you repeal the 2nd amendment), he clearly had the knowledge and access to materials to just make bombs instead. Explain to me how that would have lowered the death count.

Quote:
Fact: Liberals did nothing about either of the above after Giffords was shot, no need to worry they might do something now.
Fact: You are a turd.


Irrelevant considering "the above" are just plain wrong from start to finish.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Jul 23 2012 at 2:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I really don't see a reason to have fully automatic assault rifles ... available to the general public.


They aren't, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here. You get that the "assault rifles" people want to ban have nothing to do with banning "fully automatic weapons". We already ban those (with some incredibly hard to qualify for exceptions). I'd really love to see a thread, just once, about gun control where someone doesn't pop up and argue for banning non-fully-automatic weapons because no one should own fully automatic weapons. Just once! Smiley: glare
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jul 23 2012 at 2:28 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I really don't see a reason to have fully automatic assault rifles ... available to the general public.


They aren't, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here. You get that the "assault rifles" people want to ban have nothing to do with banning "fully automatic weapons". We already ban those (with some incredibly hard to qualify for exceptions). I'd really love to see a thread, just once, about gun control where someone doesn't pop up and argue for banning non-fully-automatic weapons because no one should own fully automatic weapons. Just once! Smiley: glare


I'm guessing here, but I think Tirith meant to say "semi-automatic assault rifles", not fully. The context makes sense then.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#75 Jul 23 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I really don't see a reason to have fully automatic assault rifles ... available to the general public.


They aren't, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here. You get that the "assault rifles" people want to ban have nothing to do with banning "fully automatic weapons". We already ban those (with some incredibly hard to qualify for exceptions). I'd really love to see a thread, just once, about gun control where someone doesn't pop up and argue for banning non-fully-automatic weapons because no one should own fully automatic weapons. Just once! Smiley: glare


I'm guessing here, but I think Tirith meant to say "semi-automatic assault rifles", not fully. The context makes sense then.


It's possible. But if that's the case, then this is a mistake that's made every single damn time a discussion about assault weapon bans comes up. It's like people can't grasp that "assault weapon" and "fully automatic" are not the same thing and keep using the terms interchangeably. I would even argue that the reason people make this false association is because it's repeated so often. So every time someone makes the same mistake, it reinforces that same false association in someone else, increasing the odds that they will repeat that same mistake themselves, thus perpetuating it. Given the sheer frequency with which this happens, mistake or not, I think it's fair for me to comment on it and point out that this is not a correct statement to make.

There were no fully automatic weapons used in this massacre. There weren't any used in the last one. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. To the degree that any discussion of modifying our current gun control laws in the aftermath of such an event is legitimate at all (and I'm not saying that it isn't), it would help to at least limit that discussion to weapons which are not already currently banned and which didn't play any part in the event at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Jul 23 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Oh. I want to take this moment to report on the most amusing thing I spotted on Fox News. I'm 100% sure I spotted a text banner that read "Shear Terror" in reference to the shooting. Apparently, there were sheep involved somehow...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Jul 23 2012 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But even if somehow magically we passed a ban that made it impossible for him to obtain any sort of firearm with which he could possibly kill a bunch of people in a crowded theater (basically impossible unless you repeal the 2nd amendment), he clearly had the knowledge and access to materials to just make bombs instead. Explain to me how that would have lowered the death count.

Well, apparently HE felt he could kill more people with guns than with some home made bombs so maybe he can explain it to you how it's easier to shoot 70-odd people than it is to go into a theater and throw home made bombs at them Smiley: rolleyes
Quote:
There were no fully automatic weapons used in this massacre. There weren't any used in the last one. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. To the degree that any discussion of modifying our current gun control laws in the aftermath of such an event is legitimate at all (and I'm not saying that it isn't), it would help to at least limit that discussion to weapons which are not already currently banned and which didn't play any part in the event at all.

ITT: Gbaji admits that gun laws banning automatic weapons work to stop massacres involving automatic weapons.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2012 4:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Jul 23 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, apparently HE felt he could kill more people with guns than with some home made bombs so maybe he can explain it to you how it's easier to shoot 70-odd people than it is to go into a theater and throw home made bombs at them


I doubt very much that number of people killed was his top priority. I suspect he had an image in his mind of his fantasy moment, and that involved him shooting a big ol gun, with a ridiculously large drum full of bullets, at a scared and screaming crowd of unsuspecting people. If he'd really just wanted to kill a large number of people, there were a number of much more trivially easy ways to do so. It was about the scene he wanted to act out.

Quote:
Quote:
There were no fully automatic weapons used in this massacre. There weren't any used in the last one. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. To the degree that any discussion of modifying our current gun control laws in the aftermath of such an event is legitimate at all (and I'm not saying that it isn't), it would help to at least limit that discussion to weapons which are not already currently banned and which didn't play any part in the event at all.

ITT: Gbaji admits that gun laws banning automatic weapons work to stop massacres involving automatic weapons.


But it doesn't stop massacres involving other forms of firearms. So logically, banning various select groups of "assault rifles" will not prevent massacres committed using still other forms of firearms, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Jul 23 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Better ban all of the guns then! Smiley: grin
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#80 Jul 23 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I doubt very much that number of people killed was his top priority.

Let me tell you that your own guesses about him weigh heavily on my opinion. So you're certain that only guns would do to fit his "big ole gun" fantasy but... barring that, I guess he would have tossed that fantasy out the window and just would have bombed the place. Makes sense Smiley: dubious

Quote:
But it doesn't stop massacres involving other forms of firearms. So logically...

...we should continue to ban the weapons used in these massacres just as we don't see automatic weapon massacres. I'm glad you're on board.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Jul 23 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Better ban all of the guns then! Smiley: grin


Kinda the point. Unless one is advocating outright repeal of the 2nd amendment, simply banning sets of guns isn't going to prevent this sort of massacre. It's at best a placebo. And while I suppose some people are ok with that, I think it's a silly waste of time.

And in this particular case (unless some new information arises), there's pretty much zero legal restrictions we could place (again, sort of repealing the second amendment) on purchasing rules which would have made a difference. This guy had zero legal problems in his past. I'm not sure how you could place any tighter restrictions on purchases which could have stopped him from getting his hands on guns while still allowing anyone else to. Which brings us right back to "unless you can repeal the 2nd amendment, you can't do anything" bit.

We're left with passing random and useless legislation to make people feel better about themselves, aren't we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Jul 23 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But it doesn't stop massacres involving other forms of firearms. So logically...

...we should continue to ban the weapons used in these massacres just as we don't see automatic weapon massacres. I'm glad you're on board.


So, all long rifles. All shotguns. And all handguns. Right? What part of "unless you're prepared to repeal the 2nd amendment" do you not understand?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Jul 23 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
People can still buy potato guns.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#84 Jul 23 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So, all long rifles. All shotguns. And all handguns. Right? What part of "unless you're prepared to repeal the 2nd amendment" do you not understand?

I guess the part where massacres with long rifles are equal to massacres with AR-15 clones.

But hey, I'm willing to err more on the side of keeping people alive than just accepting 70-odd people shot in a single instance as the cost of doing 2nd Amendment business.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Jul 23 2012 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Unlike Switzerland, though, the USA does not have a militia. I don't see how the second amendment is still relevant?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#86 Jul 23 2012 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,035 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
People can still buy potato guns.


Can't you just build one, better and cheaper.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#87 Jul 23 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
People can still buy potato guns.


Can't you just build one, better and cheaper.
Very unAmerican of you, not endorsing Capitalism.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#88 Jul 23 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,901 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
People can still buy potato guns.



Sure, but who wants to hunt potatoes?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#89 Jul 23 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,035 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
People can still buy potato guns.


Can't you just build one, better and cheaper.
Very unAmerican of you, not endorsing Capitalism.


I still have to buy the PVC and accessories from the hardware store. Plus all that hairspray...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#90 Jul 23 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts

I happened to be in Loveland, Colorado this weekend (an hour from Aurora), and happened to be in church (went for my grandmother's benefit), and here are the summarized points of the priest's homily which talked about the shooting:

1) Jesus is the only path to true peace
2) Hence, there can never be total world peace until everyone in the world accepts Jesus
3) Since it's hard to effect peace on a global scale, we should start on a personal scale, and to do this we should:
a) rearrange our living room furniture so that the seats face each other instead of the TV
b) have conversations with each other instead of posting to and reading from Facebook



Edited, Jul 23rd 2012 6:36pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#91 Jul 23 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,035 posts
trickybeck wrote:
a) rearrange our living room furniture so that the seats face each other instead of the TV


That would make it very hard to see the TV...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#92 Jul 23 2012 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nilatai wrote:
Unlike Switzerland, though, the USA does not have a militia. I don't see how the second amendment is still relevant?

People need their fantasies of using their AR-15s when they join Michelle Bachmann's army bravely standing against the Muslim tax collectors and census workers.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Jul 23 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Unlike Switzerland, though, the USA does not have a militia. I don't see how the second amendment is still relevant?

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#94 Jul 23 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: thumbsup

Then they re-elect Michelle Bachmann Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Jul 23 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So, all long rifles. All shotguns. And all handguns. Right? What part of "unless you're prepared to repeal the 2nd amendment" do you not understand?

I guess the part where massacres with long rifles are equal to massacres with AR-15 clones.


*cough* An AR-15 is a long rifle.

Quote:
But hey, I'm willing to err more on the side of keeping people alive than just accepting 70-odd people shot in a single instance as the cost of doing 2nd Amendment business.


Then fight to repeal the 2nd amendment Joph. It's your call. Write your congressman or something. I'm just saying that unless one is willing to go that route, most of the silly attempts at gun control will do nothing except make ignorant people think they're accomplishing something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Jul 23 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
*cough* An AR-15 is a long rifle.
Not without a conversion kit.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Jul 23 2012 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
*cough* An AR-15 is a long rifle.

Nope. Perhaps you meant a long gun?

Oh, and take some cough drops. Otherwise it sounds as though you were trying to be smug and you just look stupider for it.

Quote:
Then fight to repeal the 2nd amendment Joph.

Or, you know, some sort of middle ground in there. But you wouldn't be you if you understood anything beyond extremes and platitudes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Jul 23 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
******
41,296 posts
Huh. Eleven years and I've never heard a rifle referred to as a long gun. Only time I've ever heard the term was from the ex-Navy dude about ship weapons. I kind of thought he was talking about caliber, but certainly not an actual long rifle. Weird.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#99 Jul 23 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Didn't you know, Gbaji is an expert in guns. Well, ok, not an expert, because they suck, but someone who can talk about guns with experts and have them be super impressed with his made up knowledge.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#100 Jul 23 2012 at 9:21 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,624 posts
A "long rifle" is generally used to refer to the old-fashioned rifles of the 18th century or so. A "long gun" is a two-handed firearm as opposed to a pistol or sidearm. In this context a semi-auto Armalite is still going to do a whole lot more than a musket.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#101 Jul 23 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Didn't you know, Gbaji is an expert in guns. Well, ok, not an expert, because they suck, but someone who can talk about guns with experts and have them be super impressed with his made up knowledge.

In all seriousness, I thought he legitimately meant "long rifle" in a "Since the dawn of this nation, we've had this Amendment" sort of way since, you know, that's the sort of gun used in the Revolution (among others). I didn't know that he was just trying to throw around random gun terms he's picked up along the way without understanding what they meant.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT
Kavekk, Kelvyquayo, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (44)