Sorry, thought I steered around that by taking his name off the quote tag…
Somehow, I think these organizations recruit a lot of those men who BELIEVE that when a woman tells the to “Fuck off and die!” it really means that she’s hot for them.
I’m not going to argue with you down that path, which is a dead end as we’re both pretty set in our beliefs. I’ll ask you something else, and I’ll request that you stick to the question and not try to move beyond it. Do you think that the government has either the right or a legitimate desire to know that goings on of any of its citizens on anything?
Actually the 5.56 is a pretty mean round. It has excellent range, ballistic properties and superb penetration ability. They will penetrate a cast iron engine block. Also, when used on people, the ball (fully jacketed) round tends to tumble after entry producing randomly gruesome and horrific wound paths. A person could get shot in the chest producing an exit wound in back of the leg, depending on what bones got in the way. The Viet Cong were terrified of it after it came on the scene in Vietnam for this reason.
Characterizing the 5.56 round as being equivalent to a classic .22 round is like saying an F-15 and a B-17 must be equally fast because they’re about the same size.
The NATO 5.56mm round has tremendous muzzle velocity, about 3,000 feet per second. A .22 rimfire has less than half the velocity and is a smaller bullet, so hits its target with about **ten percent **of the energy.
If you are hit by a 5.56 NATO you’re in serious trouble.
Having said that, performance issues may be arising now that armies are getting away from proper 5.56 rifles like the M-16 series, and into shorter-muzzled carbines, which reduces the muzzle velocity. They think so, anyway. Soldiers complain about this stuff after combat but there is some question as to whether “I shot the guy four times before he fell down” is actually because the guy had to be shot four times, or the first three bullets missed.
I can’t answer for Doors, but I’m not letting you dictate terms of the debate with simple yes/no answers, just so you can spring your “AHA! I knew it! You do still beat your wife!” bullshit.
In short (to your question): no.
But. Once probable cause has been established, then yes, the government has a limited but legitimate right to know the goings on of its people.
Gun ownership is not in and of itself probable cause of anything sufficient for the government to get involved in my (or anyone else’s) private, lawful affairs or business.
I’m not going to spring a gotcha, you’ve been listening to Sarah Palin too long. I thought it was pretty obvious why I asked that question: to find out if people believe the government has a role in keeping certain information about its citizens. I asked him not to move beyond that because of a possible response like yours: a paranoid desire to immediately think of everything in terms of guns. In your case, the conversation we may have had would have stopped at your ‘no’, because its obvious how you feel and there’s no changing your mind
Which conservatives in particular? Like say Eisenhower or Nixon?
Along with maintaining a strong police force, tackling root causes by liberalizing drug laws and helping better inner city schools.
And you’re a fine, upstanding student of Barrack Obama with your “Who, me?” bullshit.
Within the context ofthis thread, what information do you think we’d be taling about? :dubious:
Because you like simplistic answers.
Again, in the context of this thread, what else would we be talking about? I talk about 4th amendment protections wrt firearms owners in a thread about gun control, and to you this is indications of paranoia? :rolleyes:
Yes. Nuanced answers that require you to strech you mind and exercise your beliefs a bit are obviously not in your wheelhouse.
I meant to write the 5.56mm is .223 cal, but my editing time expired before I could make the change.
I stand by my statement that the 5.56mm is a wimpy round (but you can carry a lot of them). However, I wouldn’t want to be shot by one or even a 22LR.
Like Reagan himself in the 1960’s? Like a good chunk of my relatives, who were (and still mostly are) peaceful law-abiding townspeople without guns in the house.
I suppose some of the country cousins had guns for hunting or emergencies.
OK, and how much does the budget go up to keep your police department strong, if the potential firepower of criminals goes up? That’s what I mean by an arms race.
Robert Anton Wilson made the argument once that “the right to bear arms” can create a police state: A police state requires police, and a budget for them; you get the populace to accept this by making them afraid of crime; you make crime scary by getting lots of dangerous projectile weapons into the hands of criminals, potential criminals, and their potential victims.
It’s another example of the problem of competition for personal advantage making things worse for the whole community. You think, “I’d be safer, well, at least scarier, with a gun.” So does the guy who wants to rob you. More guns lead to more gunfire leads to more social angst. Concerned parents take their kids out of public school. Then you get helicopter parents, and a generation of kids reared not to go outside. So now the kids have diabetes and vitamin D deficiency, the public health costs go up, and everyone’s scared of “crime,” and then of each other–your neighbors who spend all their time indoors and are scared of you, and you’re the same–and then people turn tribal, and society breaks apart. But hey, you just wanted a bigger, louder bangstick.
Seriously, enough is enough.
And yeah, it’s not a problem in some communities.
But we can see a line of cause and effect in parts of this country, and no, guns are not the cause of social breakdown, but they are an exacerbating element where it is happening.
And we can’t treat the symptoms in, say, L.A. or Chicago, because some dude in Wyoming has to protect himself from bears or something. And hey, he doesn’t care about some kid shot by gangs in L.A. or Chicago, nor about families killed by gangs with smuggled US-made guns in Juarez, or Nuevo Laredo, because that’s not his people.
I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe the coastal areas just need to wall themselves off, because it’s not like there’s any help or sympathy coming.
I don’t know what the hell that’s supposed to mean. I’ve never even met him and I’ve had my views on guns for longer than I’ve known of him
Since you seem to dislike bullshit so much, why don’t I make it easy for you so you can drop the paranoid questioning? In the context of this thread, we’re talking about guns, but in the bigger context, we are talking about the role of government. I asked him that specific question because I wanted to know if he thought the government had a role in knowing information about its citizens. Most would say yes, a few would say absolutely no. If he said no, then our fundamental views are so different as to render future debates impossible and I would have ended the discussion. If he acknowledged that yes, the government needs to know some things about its citizens, then I would have asked him why he felt that other things are ok, and guns specifically was not. There is no hiding of my desires to get to the gun issue, but there is a desire for me to know if there was a line to why the government is allowed to do this but an arbitrary cutoff when it comes to guns. Satisfied? There’s the whole string of my argument from one end to the other, so maybe stop pretending you’re some detective trying to piece together the clues of a mystery to be solved and just allow that some people just want to know why someone else believes in something
Here’s a news flash for you: That horse left the barn a long time ago. Police departments have arming up big time starting around the time back in the late 60s when Patty Hearst and her buddies got ahold of Uzis. Regulations on law abiding citizens will have zero effect on how criminals get their weapons. They will get them through the same black market channels they always have regardless of any laws or regulations to the contrary.
Criminals are kinda funny about not following laws that way, ya know.
I’ve never heard of “classic .22,” but the poster you quoted wrote “.22,” which is a measurement of caliber, not an actual chambering. The qualities of any .22 caliber rimfire round weren’t in question. I might also point out that “.22 rimfire” is not a specific round either unless you or someone you know has been developing a .22 rimfire wildcat, in which unlikely case I really want to see a thread on it ASAP. As compared to most military rifle rounds the 5.56x45mm NATO is reasonably described as “wimpy.”
However, being hit with 5.56x45mm would certainly ruin one’s day.
edit: I don’t mean to be arch, just pedantic.
I enjoyed Illuminatus! as much as any thirteen year old does, and some of old Bob’s other works were entertaining as well, but I’m surprised to see him cited as anything but an entertaining, well-meaning crank. He is most certainly not an authority on weapons issues. Frankly, his theory doesn’t hold water. In the US at least crime is synthetically scary because if it bleeds it leads. The news media report as many violent crimes as possible in order to drive up views/sales, and since the human brain is very bad at statistical reasoning we conclude that violent crime is everywhere. The existence of firearms is completely irrelevant to this process.
The Democrats HAVE largely abandoned their efforts at gun control. This is what has allowed me to vote for, and make large (for me) donations to them over the last decade. I am in favor of about 80% of what I consider Democratic party agenda.
See, I like my guns, but I hate every other thing the republicans promote. And they decry a number of things I favor, socialized medicine being the most glaring example. Those fuckers could offer me a safe full of full-auto guns, and I wouldn’t be grateful enough to piss on them, much less vote for one.
Before the Dems largely gave up on gun control (around 1995, after losing control of congress in 1994 to my mind) I voted for independant/3rd party candidates. Yes, I voted for Ross Perot. Twice.
FTR I would be willing to give up all my guns if it allowed the US to have socialized medicine. I would not ask others to make that swap, but it would be worth it to me.
I actively discourage the democrats I support financially from perusing gun control. It is an election-loser of an issue, and endangers almost every thing else I care about.
[QUOTE=JLRogers;15435365A]
As compared to most military rifle rounds the 5.56x45mm NATO is reasonably described as “wimpy.”
[/QUOTE]
Army evaluation studies disagree. Exactly what “military rifle rounds” are you referring to and from what information would your opinion be formed?