• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The gun thread, reloaded.

Joeof1 said:
...as they were very specific in their personal writings about what the intention was.
Click to expand...
in that case, why did they write the amendment in such a manner? with such a specific introduction?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

that introductory phrase has been much debated but it's perfectly logical to argue that you don't get to have a gun unless you're part of a well regulated militia. there are many reasons why the early settlers might have thoughts the right to bear arms was a good idea but the framers chose to enshrine only that one in the text of the amendment.

again, it's open to interpretation.

ime, many of these gun nuts don't give two shits about the constitution. they just have a huge gun boner and their interpretation of the letter of the 2nd amendment lets them masturbate publicly with their replacement penises. the whole time, they cynically sneer at the spirit of the document the talk about holding so dear.

just my opinion, of course.

alasdair
 
Bardeaux said:
All in all, I don't believe standing in trenches firing at the US army is necessary to keep social, economic and political leaders in their place. It would be a pointless effort right off the bat and would serve only as an absolute last resort.

With hundreds of millions of cyber warefare experts around the word, and many very capable tacticians inside the US, reigning in the government or even a successful revolution would result in very little small arms combat.
Click to expand...
I am so proud of you Bardo you finely did it!
 
Joeof1 said:
However, in order to do that, we have to presume humans can "create"(enumerate) real "Laws" though. Since you are calling this 2nd Amendment a "Law", that means it's immutable by natural means. Which means that no matter how much effort you apply, this will always exist. Even in outright national bans there are handguns all over Australia. So as we can see, it's a real "Law". No matter how much effort you put into it, there will be people that take it upon themselves to defend themselves. They will find a way to get weapons.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm aware of this. The parallels between this and the drug war would be astonishing.

Before we continue (it doesn't look like youre going to ask on the account that "my opinion doesn't matter"), I don't favor outright gun bans. I believe guns should be regulated in a responsible way. As I stated earlier, I think there should be stronger regulations in certain areas such as the types of weapons allowed in civilian hands during ordinary circumstances. On the other hand, I believe in deregulation in other circumstances. Nonviolent felons, for example, have no reason to be barred from owning, registering and carrying a firearm.

I also favor a registry. Why? Because this way we can minimize the flow of illegal weapons on the street (why does someone buy/steal and use an illegal weapon?) . Somewhere at some point, someone has to purchase a gun legally. From there, we can keep track of how many guns are being purchased, who is a legal gun owner, where and when a gun was stolen, or how a recovered illegal weapon was obtained. I drive a car to work. When I bought my car I not only had to have it registered, I had to insure it. I need a license to drive it. I'm not even considering all of these regulations on a firearm. What makes it acceptable to register a car but not a firearm, and does vehicle registration in any way hinder my right to buy and own a vehicle?

So the Second Amendment is a real "Law", in the traditional definition, and you would presume to do what to it exactly? Force it to exist in some other way, because you disagree with it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I was talking about how despite the rhetoric at the Continental Congress, it differs from what was actually put on paper and into law.
 
^ I hate to tell you but fully automatic Uzi's, MP5's, full auto assault rifles like Armalites and AK's or even full auto shotguns are not one man killing machines ;) . If you hold down the trigger on say a AR-15 or MP5 submachine gun if it's on full auto you will use more ammo needlessly. Most mags in the US hold no more then 30 rounds and you are going to empty that pretty quick on fully automatic. I live in Canada and you can't own a machine gun here at all (a machine gun is anything that fires more then 1 shot with each pull of the trigger) which is not all that much different then the US as you have to go through bullshit paper work and there are no machine guns made past 1985 thanks to Reagan. Funny that the right wing don't mention that they brought in many of the gun control laws :p

Now if you had a Minigun which is a Gatling machine gun that fires .308 shells out of 6 barrels at a rate of up to 6000 rounds a minute then yes you might have a chance at taking down a police force. But who can afford those or wants to do the paper work? Not to mention your going to spend a few grand in ammo very quickly lol. Plus id imagine lugging around a gun that size and the loads of ammo to go with it would get pretty heavy pretty quickly.
 
In the US, statistically, machine guns are very safe.

The last time I can find a legally owned machine gun being used to murder someone in the US was over 20 years ago.

Considering there's supposed to be something like 100,000 fully automatic weapons in civilian hands, I think our laws our working.

If you're talking about crime in general, I'd say the focus should be on handguns. Those tend to be the most used for crime, probably due to their ease of concealment. For the murder rate, handguns kill 10x more people than shotguns and rifles combined.
 
Last edited:
Yeah i think you have a point about handguns. It's not like a carbine or a sawed off shotgun or even a Uzi is that concealable. But i could fit say a .38 special .380 semi auto in my pocket easy enough. I have only ever fired a handgun once as although there's a gun in nearly every house here (usually shotguns and rifles) there are very few handguns as they really serve no other purpose besides killing people or target shooting. It's not like you can hunt with them as your not going to be able to get close enough to most animals to hit them. Plus i wouldn't trust anything lighter then a .357 magnum (which is the only handgun i have fired and kicks like hell) to bring down say a Moose. But for hunting big game you use a fucking rifle or sometimes a shotgun not a fucking handgun. So people really only have handguns here if they like doing alot of target practice. Of course they come in handy if your a drug dealer as well but that's different. I think handguns and shotguns are the main guns used to kill people in my province. It's not exactly hard to get a handgun here it's just that people rarely use them.

Some machine pistol's would be easily concealable but i am not too sure as to the legality of them in the US. Any handgun that's a full automatic would be illegal here to begin with. Granted it might be hard hiding the extended clip you'd need for a gun like that.
 
paranoid android said:
Yeah i think you have a point about handguns. It's not like a carbine or a sawed off shotgun or even a Uzi is that concealable. But i could fit say a .38 special .380 semi auto in my pocket easy enough. I have only ever fired a handgun once as although there's a gun in nearly every house here (usually shotguns and rifles) there are very few handguns as they really serve no other purpose besides killing people or target shooting. It's not like you can hunt with them as your not going to be able to get close enough to most animals to hit them. Plus i wouldn't trust anything lighter then a .357 magnum (which is the only handgun i have fired and kicks like hell) to bring down say a Moose. But for hunting big game you use a fucking rifle or sometimes a shotgun not a fucking handgun. So people really only have handguns here if they like doing alot of target practice. Of course they come in handy if your a drug dealer as well but that's different. I think handguns and shotguns are the main guns used to kill people in my province. It's not exactly hard to get a handgun here it's just that people rarely use them.

Some machine pistol's would be easily concealable but i am not too sure as to the legality of them in the US. Any handgun that's a full automatic would be illegal here to begin with. Granted it might be hard hiding the extended clip you'd need for a gun like that.
Click to expand...

You can make a glock automatic fairly easily. They used to sell the modified slides on silk roads iirc. The machine gun ban was a feel good piece of legislation that wasnt meant to stop any actual violence much like switchblade bans in the 20th century. I would take semi auto over fully auto any day of week as most would.
 
Droppersneck said:
You can make a glock automatic fairly easily. They used to sell the modified slides on silk roads iirc. The machine gun ban was a feel good piece of legislation that wasnt meant to stop any actual violence much like switchblade bans in the 20th century. I would take semi auto over fully auto any day of week as most would.
Click to expand...

Yeah i have heard they are not too hard to convert. I know people that have made semi auto rifles into full auto ones but i don't know anyone that's done it with a handgun. It would be fun to say get a Glock-18 (the things are supposed to cost a fortune from what i have heard) put a extended clip in it and use a old truck or something as target practice and put 50 rounds into it in about a second. From what I've seen of those they empty the whole fucking clip in a few seconds at most so on full auto it wouldn't be the most practical self defense weapon. I would like to have one of those select fire AR-18's (abit of a homage to my Irish roots ;) ) and have some fun with it on full auto.

And yeah the machine gun ban was just a full of shit legislation put into law during the Reagan years. The switchblade ban is fucking stupid and we have it here too. Switchblades come in handy doing some jobs which require using a knife alot but i guess they got banned because they look scary to some people 8) . I've had a few when i was younger as they are easy enough to make but you can get in abit of shit for carrying them to say the least.
 
alasdairm said:
in that case, why did they write the amendment in such a manner? with such a specific introduction?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

that introductory phrase has been much debated but it's perfectly logical to argue that you don't get to have a gun unless you're part of a well regulated militia. there are many reasons why the early settlers might have thoughts the right to bear arms was a good idea but the framers chose to enshrine only that one in the text of the amendment.

again, it's open to interpretation.

ime, many of these gun nuts don't give two shits about the constitution. they just have a huge gun boner and their interpretation of the letter of the 2nd amendment lets them masturbate publicly with their replacement penises. the whole time, they cynically sneer at the spirit of the document the talk about holding so dear.

just my opinion, of course.

alasdair
Click to expand...
In that case why was every male REQUIRED to own a gun then at a certain age? Look at militia acts. Every male was the militia.

Plus your remark is sexist. Many women own guns.
 
Last edited:
Escher's Waterfall said:
In the US, statistically, machine guns are very safe.

The last time I can find a legally owned machine gun being used to murder someone in the US was over 20 years ago.

Considering there's supposed to be something like 100,000 fully automatic weapons in civilian hands, I think our laws our working.

If you're talking about crime in general, I'd say the focus should be on handguns. Those tend to be the most used for crime, probably due to their ease of concealment. For the murder rate, handguns kill 10x more people than shotguns and rifles combined.
Click to expand...

Murder, maybe. There was an unfortunate Uzi incident only a couple months back. Negligence like this brings unnecessary controversy to responsible owners.

A survey would be interesting - I bet a great many US Americans would shite their pants if they were enlightened on gun laws; specifically that law abiding citizens could own machine guns, at least under federal law.
 
Like bardeaux said, end the drug war and I think you will see a change in the gun violence in this country. THe mass shootings are more of a mental health issue and are a very small portion of the gun violence. Its all the shit that goes along with the drug war that creates this violence. I remember going with my connect to his connects place and even if he knew the guy for awhile he would pull his heavy .45 out of his pants and place it on the table first thing. Im sure the other guy had his piece too. What a messing siutation those could have turned out to be which im sure happens.

And the constitution and our cocks was not what was on our minds.
 
Guns are bad and so are police officers. So I guess when some thug wants to mug us when we're walking down an alley or storms into our house to rob us and rape the women in our home we should just start praying and hope for the best?
 
It's a valid point... A lot of liberals don't think citizens need guns, yet at the same time also have less than favorable things to say about cops. So who exactly is supposed to protect anyone?
 
^ that wasn't the premise at all.
Access to guns in Australia was restricted after this country's worst - and last mass shootings.
Nearly 20 years on, Australia doesn't have school shootings, crazy people in crowded places opening fire randomly, or a high rate of gun crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top