I know I’m hopelessly outnumbered here (incidentally I’m not anti-all-guns-period, but pro a kind of British situation - shotguns okay if you live on a farm, or something) and I have certainly had some of my ignorance about Americans removed. So the board has done its job.
But, whereas in my stance on evolution I feel like a nutjob, on the matter of guns I feel like everyone else is the nutjob. These things are so destructive - that’s their function, their raison d’etre. And companies make billions from producing them and the Government millions (billions?) from permitting them.
PS I’m not a pacifist, in case that might be assumed.
“What do they use them for? Because they’re just so damn cool. There are many annual events one can take his machine guns to and blast away at old cars and other neat shit. You can take them to the range, improve your skill… They’re just fun. I can’t explain it. Why do some people enjoy buying/collecting stamps??? Beats me!”
Last time I checked, stamps didn’t propel deadly pieces of lead at high velocity. I suppose you could get a paper cut and die of an infection, but that’s about it.
At every gun show I’ve ever been to, in the multiple states in which I’ve been to gun shows, I’ve never seen a ‘private seller’ who had a booth (table) full of guns for people to purchase. If there were firearms at the booth, the dealer was licensed. The only stuff sold at unlicesend seller tables were things like sew-on patches, memorabilia like WWII helmets, cases (including some really nice hand made wooden ones for antique firearms) and food.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you hurt yourself, I don’t want you hurting me.
I notice that gun nuts always seem to conflate those two things. They just can’t seem to comprehend the difference between protecting me from others, and protecting me from myself. A HUGE difference, IMO, but one which seems to escape Libertarian-types.
No it wasn’t clear. Mainly because my point was that a person can’t explain why something is “fun”. How can you explain the enjoyment something gives you. I can’t tell you why Coke tastes good, why football is so fun to play, why dancing is so fun or why shooting machineguns is so cool.
The question was, “Why do people like machineguns?” Who can answer that one? It’s not easy to justify something that interests you. Try telling me why a person enjoys collecting stamps.
God, wasn’t that clear?
Oh, and while you’re on the subject of machineguns being so dangerous and the government needs to protect you, not from yourself but from other people (people waiving machineguns, no doubt), show me one example of a person being murdered by a legally purchased automatic weapon. Hell, show me an article of a person being accidentally killed by a legally purchased automatic weapon.
I notice that anti-gun nuts always seem to conflate those two things. They just can’t seem to comprehend the difference between actual danger, and what they think is dangerous because it scares them. There is a difference between the statistics which show almost zero deaths or injuries causes by these machineguns and their constructed reality that tells them machineguns MUST be dangerous. A HUGE difference, IMO, but one which seems to escape antigun-types.
It was quite clear. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t. But to expound further on my point, whether stamps ought to be controlled is not an issue at all, because stamps are not dangerous in any way. So while I understand your point about why things are fun, I was making the further point that one has to consider the potential danger as well. If millions of people were being murdered with stamps, it might very well make sense to reconsider the merits of stamp-collecting as a hobby.
No, I don’t care to wander down strawman lane, thank you. I only pointed out that stamp-collecting doesn’t work as an analogy to gun-ownership, and that there is a difference between protecting me from myself, and protecting me from others.
But that’s exactly it. Millions of people are not being murdered by legally purchased machineguns. Millions of people are not being hurt accidentally by legally purchased machineguns.
Hell, millions of people are not being harmed by illegally purchased machinguns. I’m not throwing around a strawman. The fact is, machineguns are not a danger to you or to others. You can’t just claim they are dangerous because you think they are. Or because they look dangerous.
Yes, the purpose of a machinegun is to kill people. But the facts say that responsible gun ownership is not causing any deaths or injuries. Even illegally owned machineguns don’t seem to be killing many people. Occassionally there will be an incident, but I can only think of two or three off the top of my head. The Hollywood bank robbery and Waco come to mind. Those were illegally obtained automatic weapons. So further gun legislation would have dont jack shit to prevent either of those incidents.
Oh, and I didn’t mean to come off as angry. I just get that way when I’m holding all these machineguns!
Kerry tries to come off as a hunter and gun enthusiest by posing for all those linked pictures, yet he votes to ban some of the exact guns he’s seen using. You don’t consider this to be “playing both sides”. This is another reason he gets the reputation of being wishy-washy and flip-floppy. He seems to be trying too hard to make ‘everyone’ happy and that concerns me.
Ah, but how do you know they’re exactly the same guns? And what does exactly the same gun mean anyways? After you’ve shot with it, in what way can it be described as exactly the same as it was before it had been used? And he didn’t vote to ban them, he voted not to extend a period of time to an indefinite extent for their use in perpetuity. And he isn’t a hunter because he doesn’t personally hunt wild animals; his gun does. And he isn’t a gun enthusiast because he personally doesn’t feel any elation or enthusiasm when his gun is hunting solely on account of the fact that said gun is hunting. His elation or enthusiasm is engendered by the feeling of walking in the fresh air in his flak jacket. Not that his flak jacket is truly a flak jacket…
(emphasis mine) What is it you’re emplying if not that millions of people are being murdered by machineguns and that we should reconsider collecting machineguns as a hobby?
You also said, in reference to banning machineguns, that you think the government should protect you.
What are they protecting you from? How is he going to hurt you? You have not shown any proof that they are a danger to you. When has anyone ever been hurt by one of these?
Are you going to keep saying this is a strawman? Or are you going to show me how machineguns are a threat to your health or well being? Or are you just going to admit they pose no danger to you.
I’m not spewing out NRA talking points!! If I was, I would have brought up the irony in the fact that machineguns - which were designed to kill people - have killed very few people in the last 30 years*. Whereas automobiles - which were never meant to hurt anyone - have killed millions and millions!
*Legally owned ones in the US. (Let’s not get off topic and talk about Iraq or something)
It’s The Pit. You don’t like what I say? Then bite my hairy white ass.
I gave what I thought was the most appropriate response. You want some ketchup or something for that ass-sandwich?
Wasn’t meant to suggest that they did, shithead. How you got from here-to-there is an indication of how far up your ass your head is wedged. It was meant to indicate that “rights” aren’t predicated on “needs.”
Sheesh yerfuckingself. Snake opened this thread, for the simple purpose of ranting about how anti-gun John Kerry is.
And I’ve stopped beating my wife. Happy now, you fucking tit?
Larry:
At least we do have the capacity for some rational thought, as opposed to advocates of draconian gun control policies. Especially fucking dumb-ass foreigners who aren’t particulalry intelligent or even generally knowledgeable on the subject.
No, there’s incremental encroachment behind it, placing the burden further and further upon the law-abiding gun owners. Get the fucking cops off their donut-eating asses and get out there to catch the actual criminals. I get a speeding ticket for doing 37 mph in a 35 mph zone at 10:00 AM on a Sunday morning; this is effective law enforcement?
Oh yeah, right. Like a shady governement agency (tasked with firearms revenue enforcement), with one of the worst track records in the executive branch, is going ot claim anything else. You might as well put the foxes in charge of the entire chicken industry.
I seriously doubt that any lawmaker proposing “gun show” legislation has actually been to a gun show. They listen instead to :gasp: the BATF. :rolleyes:
roger:
Did you know that Gun Control has it’s roots in racism? “Guns are okay for the white man, but no them uppity niggers and spics.” Most of the early gun control laws were enacted in the Southern States after the Civil War and Reconstruction, and technically applied to everyone, even though most often they were selectively enforced, 99% of the time against blacks.
The whole “Gun Control” movement is not about that nowadays, but there is still a very strong element of elitism running through it.
Rosie O’Donnell hates guns, and wants to ban them; yet she has armed guards.
Dianne Feinstein hates guns and wants to ban them, yet she has a Concealed Carry Permit.
Sarah Brady hates guns and wants to ban them, yet she bought a rifle for her son, who was underaged and not legally able to take possession of it.
John Kerry has consistently voted for every hare-brained gun control measure that came before the Senate, yet he own a semi-auto shotgun (one of the dreaded “assault weapons” and claims to have an AK-47 tucked away at home.
It seems all the people are equal, but some people are more equal than others, and the more-equal types don’t want the common rabble as well armed as them.
Look, I’m not interested in playing “gotcha” games with you. The fact that you willfully either include or exclude the phrase “legally purchased”, depending on whether it’s convenient to the trap you’re trying to set for me, proves that you’re just laying bait. I might consider responding to you if you would stop adding qualifying phrases to what I wrote and presenting it as though I had written it that way, although at this point I’m skeptical that it would even be possible to have any kind of meaningful conversation with you.
Which ‘draconian’ policies do you refer to here? Where are their advocates?
“Incremental encroachment,” huh? You mean, like, “a slippery slope?” This is the attitude that is so perplexing to people outside the NRA culture-- the assumption that the secret motivation for all gun legislation is ultimately to restrict law-abiding people from owning guns. There’s no logical argument for it, it’s just an article of faith. Remember the opposition to gun registration? It was, after all, just a back-door way of compiling a list of people with guns, to facilitate confiscating them en masse from law-abiding people. “Anti-gunners” who claimed that it was only intended to make it easier for law enforcement to investigate crimes commited with guns were either delusional or deceitful. Except, you know, the legislation passed, has been an invaluable aid to law enforcement, and there haven’t been any gestapo raids to take away Joe Public’s guns.
WHAT’S THAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER THE DIN OF THE BLACK HELICOPTERS!
Did you know that, during that ugly period of institutionalized racism, laws against rape (even though they technically applied to everyone) were most often selectively enforced, 99% of the time against blacks? The time has come to get those racist rape laws off the books.
Do you have a single cite for any of those people advocating a blanket ban on guns? Again, it’s this bizarre view in which any legislation related to guns translates into an extreme intent to ban them. The weakest sort of straw man.
Except that he doesn’t claim any such thing. His “Chinese assault rifle” is a single-bolt-action rifle, which wouldn’t be affected by the ban, even if it was kept in working condition. If you want to argue against someone’s policies, try sticking to points that are remotely true, instead of parroting memes you pick up on right wing loonie blogs.
Fine, I’ll bite. Show me where machineguns have killed anybody, anywhere.
I keep saying “legally purchased” because if they’re illegally purchased, then what’s a ban going to do??? A person will always be able to illegally purchase a machinegun no matter how many bans there are.
But go ahead, show me proof that machineguns are dangerous at all. I’ve already pointed out WACO and the Hollywood bank robbery. So no repeating those. And even if you did, that’s still roughly a dozen people. Not what I’d call an epidemic!
So now it’s on you. No qualifiers. Show me proof that machineguns are a danger to you. Let’s have it.
If you try to claim any war or military conflict or some crap in some other country, this conversation is over. Other than that, no qualifiers. I’m very eager to see what you come up with.
