Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Nihil Obstat]

I wasn't talking about either. The VP was. He believes that a double barrel shotgun is all that is necessary for self-defense. Which term do you think he is referring to when he talks about automatics?

I do not know which term was intended, which is why I asked. As I said, it is a rather significant difference whether he means semi-automatic, or fully automatic. He is wrong in either case, but it is a meaningful distinction.

[Jesus_lol]

Is another round chambered after firing? It's an automatic. 

 

Another term often used for semi auto is an "auto loader"

 

 

I wasn't talking about either. The VP was. He believes that a double barrel shotgun is all that is necessary for self-defense. Which term do you think he is referring to when he talks about automatics?

 

Lol, he actually said the double barrel was better than the AR15 in every way, but for some reason he isnt pushing a bill to get the police and soldiers back using single action Colt 6 shooters and double barrel farm shotguns. It should be pretty obvious to anyone who watches that video, that Biden doesnt really know what he is talking about.

 

He even admits that Assault "weapons" are not responsible for crime, and that no criminals use them, but then he says that is why they should be banned. makes no sense.

[Maximilianus]

They want to ban all guns, they throw us a bone with hand guns and hunting rifles but they really want them all verboten. They would probably be nice and let us keep muzzle loaders, but then ban the Brown Besses and Charleville replicas when they realize they have military features (bayonet lug) and ban those as assault weapons too.

[Winchester]

Holy crap, they have attached knives to rifles!

 

What if you attached a rifle to a knife?

 

Lowers are what is considered the firearm. We need to find a way to make rifles without lowers.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Winchester

[Maximilianus]

They'll retro-ban this  "assault weapon" too.




 

 

 

[Winchester]

Select fire weapons (Personal Defense Weapons) are: "suitable for personal defense" per the Homo Superior (or gubermint).

 

When a Homo Inferior owns a non-select fire version, they are "assault weapons", not suitable for personal defense, but only to kill mass amounts of people.

 

 

 

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0

 

I think we're done, here, boys.

[Nihil Obstat]

Select fire weapons (Personal Defense Weapons) are: "suitable for personal defense" per the Homo Superior (or gubermint).

 

When a Homo Inferior owns a non-select fire version, they are "assault weapons", not suitable for personal defense, but only to kill mass amounts of people.

 

 

 

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0

 

I think we're done, here, boys.

Clearly the problem here is that they are suitable for personal defense. We plebeians of course are not persons, so we have no right to defend ourselves. It is up to our great and powerful masters to do it for us, at their whim and leisure.

[Jesus_lol]

This gun could even be potentially banned by the AWB/Mag limits. 

 

Girandoni .46 cal Air rifle and it has a 22 round magazine, and enough pressure stored in the buttstock for 30-40 shots before it needs to be repressurized.

 

Oh and it was invented about 9 years before the Constitution was written, and was in common use by the Austrian military, and Lewis and Clarke basically succeeded at their cross country trip because of that specific gun.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Jesus_lol

[Anastasia13]

Because that, of course has never repeatedly happened before, republics and democratic governments have never ever fallen into dictatorship and totalitarianism. The people should blindly trust government and allow it to make them completely defenseless and unprepared for the rise of a dictator or authoritarian government. Republics and democratic governments last forever and the people have never ever had to fight for their right to be free, nor will they ever. Blind trust is all we need, the government will always protect our rights.

 

I believe in Government,

the director almighty,

Creator of peace and justice,

and in the executive, our only leader, our president,

who was elected by the Holy Spirit,

born of the War of Independence,

suffered to help the needy,

was prosecuted, stayed and was triumphant;

whose morals never descend toward hell;

on those days he protect us again from death;

whose ways forever ascend into heaven,

and whose righteousness is at the right hand of God the Father almighty;

from there government will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Rule of Law,

the holy catholic legislature,

the communion of congress,

the forgiveness of diplomatic immunity,

the resurrection of the leadership,

and government’s proper rule everlasting. Amen.

 

*No disrespect to religion intended.  No elected officials were direct hurt in the wording of this parody.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Light and Truth

[Anastasia13]

Look, automobile deaths far outnumber fire arm deaths in most states of the US.

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths#table-tab

What we need to do is stop focusing on gun control and start focusing on automobile control!

 

A priest and a police chief were at a church lunch. The little talk given to the church was about the need to emphasize God, family, and life in out culture and society.  If this was stronger, we would not need as much gun control.  The guy that is going to buy a gun on the street and kill someone because he is not happy about something is not the guy that is suddenly going to respect gun control legislation.

[Groo the Wanderer]

They'll retro-ban this  "assault weapon" too.




 

 

 

i wonder if arf can make one of these on his laser?

[Era Might]

Interesting article in The Atlantic - "Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is The Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever":

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/

 

 

Guerrilla warfare waged by small bands of partisans was not militarily important to America's defense of its liberty. One possible exception was the partisan warfare against the British and their Tory allies in South and North Carolina. However, in the Southern theater, guerilla bands were often more dedicated to plunder and inflicting harm on their domestic enemies than fighting in conventional battles.

 

"Bloody Kansas" provides a valuable historical contrast. In 1854, Congress decided to overturn the Missouri Compromise and allow the territory of Kansas to decide by referendum whether it would enter the Union as a slave or a free state. New England abolitionists sponsored more than a thousand armed settlers, armed with weapons they called "Beecher's Bibles," to move to Kansas to support the "free state" movement. Thousands more free-state supporters moved from throughout the Midwest.

At the same time, several thousand armed pro-slavery settlers also moved into the territory. Very soon the contending factions had organized their own pro- and anti-slavery militias -- "Border Ruffians" and "Jayhawks." Both factions sought arms and munitions from out-of-state supporters. The result was widespread intimidation and terror as guerrillas plundered homesteads, sacked towns, and staged ambushes that led to robbery and murder.

 

After various minor skirmishes, in 1856 a group of the pro-slavery Border Ruffians assaulted the free-state stronghold of Lawrence. They burned the Free State Hotel to the ground, destroyed two anti-slavery newspapers, and ransacked the town.

 

In retaliation, the infamous abolitionist John Brown led an attack on a a pro-slavery settlement called Osawatomie Creek. There, his men seized seven settlers and proceeded to hack five of them to death with broadswords. This act of wanton violence was followed by more inter-communal violence, skirmishes, and battles -- all of them committed by poorly disciplined armed bands that answered to no one.

 

The last outrage before the Civil War was the "Marais de Cygnes massacre" of 1858, where a band of Border Ruffians murdered five unarmed Free-Staters in cold blood. In a sparsely populated territory with a scant 8000 inhabitants , 56 people were murdered or killed in combat between armed gangs operating beyond the bounds of the law. And the sectional passions unleashed by this low-grade but lethal conflict contributed directly to the outbreak of the far deadlier Civil War. Just for a rough comparison, that would be equal to over 2 million fatalities if similar violence erupted in America today.

 

...

 

So a citizen uprising at any point in the foreseeable future would probably not involve like-minded constitutionalists taking up arms to defend democracy and liberty. It would more likely be a matter of one aggrieved social group attacking another. And for the most criminal and vicious members of society, the rationale of "protecting" their own rights would be a convenient justification for straight-up looting, robbery, and bloodshed.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Era Might

[4588686]

Interesting article in The Atlantic - "Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is The Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever":

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/

 

 

That's really shocking.  Unless you have ever spent any substantive amount of time studying how actual conflicts work rather than playing inane thought experiments about what might maybe could possible happen under certain conditions maybe.  

[Winchester]

The most compelling argument is the "No one is superior to anyone else" argument. Of course, against the Cult of the State, it's not very effective.

[4588686]

The most compelling argument is the "No one is superior to anyone else" argument. Of course, against the Cult of the State, it's not very effective.

The best scenario would be for general disarmament.  But for some reason I never see that advocated by your or any anarcho-capitalist.  I see all sorts of things about how awesome it is for citizens to have AR15s but I never see anything about how great it would be if there just were no AR15s.  I honestly don't understand that.  The corporations that manufacture arms, and fund various political causes to enhance their ability to sell lots of destructive toys to governments and then fund alarmed political movements in response to that highly armed government to open up new markets in the civilian population to sell more arms to, seem to have a very nice system.  You're not going to overthrow the American government by force of arms.  

 

So you have massive corporations that selling a product that helps fuel conflict and increase the capacity of governments to crush dissident movements.  But using taking public action to severely inhibit these corporations is 'aggression.'  That state is awful but we can't turn the power of the state on itself to limit itself because that involves the state and anything involving the state is a prior evil and wicked unless we're talking about governments covering smaller geographic space because then using one level of government that is geographically larger against another smaller level of government that happens to be perpetuating a system of violence against its minority populations is terrible because we don't want to encourage tyranny.  

 

 

Edited February 4, 2013 by Hasan