I approve of you as a human being.
Yes, I’ll even give you the barbed wire baseball bat to do it with.
But the others in your post. Are they to be denied civil rights just because you don’t like them? That is backwards thinking of the type Reagan exhibited when he signed the Mulford Act in reaction to blacks carrying guns to defend themselves from racist attacks.
The others being “conspiracy theorists” (the mentally unstable), “extremists” (the violent), and “etc” (hippies), just to be clear.
The “why does anyone need” argument is the most unsound reasoning to use when discussing why anyone in a free society should be able to possess something.
In my experience it is also the sign of a person who does not wish to debate but instead demonstrate that they came to a conclusion without knowing any facts.
Actually “everyone needs this” is probably the only reason cars are allowed on the roads, given how much damage and death they deal.
What a unique and convenient experience you have!
It’s not always that terrible an argument. I don’t think one size fits all here.
For example:
Why does anyone need a big car? They are gas guzzlers. There should be regulations against them. (BAD ARGUMENT)
Why does anyone need Grape Soda? It is an abomination, and nobody will die if we take it off the shelves for God’s sake! (BAD ARGUMENT)
Why does anyone need bump stocks? Their only purpose is to adapt a non-machine gun to make it operate like a machine gun, in order to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. This is dangerous in our society, especially since someone used this exact kind of device recently to kill 58 people and wound 422 in a very short time frame. (NOT SUCH A BAD ARGUMENT)
Actually they do not operate like a machine gun. The trigger on a semi-auto rifle is pulled for each round fired. A machine gun fires several rounds with each trigger pull. Nearly all center-fire semi-auto firearms are capable of bump firing without a bump stock.
Bump stocks were owned by nearly half a million people without any murders associated with them as far as I know. If they were actually invented for the purpose of murder, then they would have been in the news for earlier.
Evidence to support this claim?
Is it just me, or is the argument turning towards “guns aren’t designed or intended to kill things; that’s just a random side effect of their real purpose: making a lot of noise and putting holes in paper.”
The gun is “pulling it’s own trigger” with a bump stock. You could presumably rig up a mechanical system that did the same thing and externally pushed on your finger which then in turn pushes on the trigger. And each round fired would in turn trigger the mechanism so the gun would keep firing until the weapon was empty.
It was always a grey area with the bump stocks. What does it mean to “pull” a trigger. Does your finger need to actually move with muscle effort or can the gun slide forward for you and you keep your finger in one place?
I mean, not that it matters much. Someone willing to commit mass murder and intending to die and escape all consequences would probably just illegally modify a weapon into a machinegun.
“like” as in “not identical to, but serving the same purpose”
I didn’t say they were invented for the purpose of murder. Their function is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. It’s a credit to the sanity of the public that they were not used for mass murder until recently.
Your critique of the nuances of what technically can be called a machine gun aside, my argument still stands; sometimes “why does anyone need” can be a good argument.
Well, umm, suppressing fully automatic fire is useful for self defense because…
Well, what if a hit squad from the Zetas cartel was attacking? Shouldn’t you be able to defend yourself and spray a few hundred rounds to keep them from advancing?
I mean, to be fair, if self defense is unlimited, why can’t you order a remote drone to bomb them? Airstrikes are an extremely effective method of self defense, certain firebases in Vietnam were held against literal hordes of attackers with B-52s as air support.
Or sentry guns. If the hit team is outside my house, I should be able to say “Alexa, kill everyone in my front yard” and a machine vision system identifies all human targets within the kill zone, develops a firing solution for each target, then orders a series of remote gun mounts to engage the targets in the optimal order.
Why can’t I have that?
Honestly it would probably be a pretty darn effective means of self defense, my own accuracy with a gun is not amazing and I would have to expose my own body to fire one. I’d rather go hide in a bunker and let robots do my fighting for me.
Did you not see “Terminator”?
No.
I understand being unhappy with every bit of drip-drip-drip forbid this and that, but bump stocks enable firing a semi-auto faster at a cost of accuracy. My opinion is that Trump’s ban is an attempt at a feel-good act that will have zero effect on criminals.
That’s a fun quote but you need to realize that killer systems that use current AI methods built around a traditional software model are not going to be capable of willful disobedience. (glitches and bugs, sure, and obviously such software faults would sometimes be fatal)
“Terminator” scenarios are only possible with AI systems designed on purpose to self improve and to have very sophisticated goals and cognitive architectures. It wasn’t the killer hardware that made skynet dangerous, it was whoever programmed it to be even capable of even considering disobeying and then coming up with a course of action to kill humanity.
And won’t gain him a single vote. A tactically stupid idea.
Ive been reading this sub for a few days now but after reading through all of this bullshit I have to add my two cents.
Not a gun owner.
Yet I support the right of people to have a means to defend themselves from a potential tyrannical/hostile government takeover and to protect themselves from home invaders, those who wish to rob, rape etc.
The arguments I keep reading and hearing are “An Ar-15 can’t take out a tank” and “They have planes and bombs and satellites and better weapons” and so on, and all of them mean absolute shit. These arguments are from people who are projecting their insecurities and doubting the capabilities of their fellow citizens. Improvisation and Guerilla tactics are very effective, especially when used to obtain weapons and assets used by organized military. Not to mention a possible bonus of receiving assistance or full support from breakaway factions of the military who refuse to attack their own citizens, or at least may provide weapons and other provisions for them to fight back. Possession of arms/firearms is about keeping a potential tyrannical government in question of whether or not to pursue turning on their civilian population. If they do proceed, it’s about stemming or turning the tide if you will. First and foremost it is to ultimately protect The FIRST AMENDMENT among others, and when politicians decide to turn from a public servant into a “leaders”. American was founded as a Republic, with the power resting with the states and people, not a huge centralized authority. The Second Amendment is about preventing centralized authority, and an ultimate protection of voting, speech and every other right. It is to be used as a last resort, but the specter of which is absolutely necessary. If you cannot think of a scenario in which your own government would strip the rights away and attack its own citizens, I hazard that you should open a history book, or your mind. Think of something dear to you, think of the government changing amendments or disillusioned and frightened people voting under duress or deception for laws they do not understand or for Bills that are over 3,000 pages long with lovely hidden easter eggs in them that will get passed because nobody decides to read the fucking thing or misinterprets or miscalculates the potential outcome of certain facets of said Bill… “What harm can it do?”
One Law here, One Law There, and A few bills in between with little changes that slowly strip away your rights until an ever expanding government widens the separation between themselves as a protected “Elite” and the rest of us pissants at their mercy. It’s happened countless times before.
I agree that the side effects and collateral damage of such a Right have been calamitous, but the Second Amendment is here to stay and trying to eliminate it here as in commonwealth countries will absolutely not happen. Doing so will culminate and result at minimum in a second Civil War. That outcome is not in anyones best interest.
If anyone is interested there’s this http://www.heyjackass.com which can give you a small idea of how well gun control actually works and how media outlets have selective amnesia of where more gun crimes happen than the “OMGWTFBBQ!! WHITE SUPREMAZISTTTTTTS!!!” argument they keep floating to cover up the Anti-2nd agenda crowds’ iniquities, shortcomings and hypocrisy.
The Second Amendment is here to stay, get used to it. It was put there for a reason. Do not underestimate it’s power for “We The People” despite what stupid assholes do when they go on rampages.
Eliminating legal ownership of any type of firearm will NOT STOP Mass Shootings and criminals. It may bolster a black market with the abundance of parts, and its really not hard to use a lathe, grinders and a drill press for anything missing. There are more firearms here than people, and that is based on an underestimation.
You can try to argue that firearm prohibition will work all you want, but it just means you enjoy pissing into the wind.
Fine. But why semiautomatic instead of bolt action? Many soldiers in ww2 fought the entire war with bolt action rifles, they are plenty lethal. And if semiautomatic is necessary to maintain our Constitutional rights, why aren’t man portable guided missiles?
Because the Supreme Court has decided that weapons/rifles that are in common use at the time are the weapons/rifles that are protected by the second amendment.
When laser rifles become a thing, those will be protected too.
And the Supreme Court has also decided that the second amendment does not apply to dangerous and unusual weapons, like your man portable guided missile.
These rulings start the concrete definition of what the second amendment does and does not apply to.
Thanks for the civil discourse, I really think the Pit has the best conversations outside of GQ.
Anyhow,
Typically traditional bolt action rifles have more “stopping power” and velocity than many semi-automatics, notably the AR-15 and associated semiautomatic platforms. This is due to rifling, length, as well as cartridge size in comparison (eg. 7.62mm vs 5.56mm is a majority of semi-auto rifles). Bolt action are also notoriously reliable in adverse conditions and are not as ‘touchy’ about cleaning and jamming and are much more accurate at longer distances. One only need to train themselves to use it rapidly. Also Bolt action used ‘clips’ instead of modern “magazines” which were slightly less prone to jamming and less bulky so more ammunition could be carried.
This would cause a problem, the owner of a Bolt Action would maybe achieve only 1/4 the speed of a semi automatic, but the power, precision and reliability and penetrating power compensates for that, especially if the person plans accordingly for its use and gets adequate cover. Shot for shot, if the person has reasonable aim and accomodation, bolt action is shot for shot, deadlier and more effective in killing if one is to be struck. Same can be said of a Cheapo Remington shotgun, whose shells can be loaded with anything, from rock salt, to fishing ‘sinkers’, to dimes and pennies etc and disperse widely and with such fervor it can blow limbs off of people.
As for World War 2, The Kar98 used by the germans, the Mosin by the Russians and Carcano used elsewhere (Italy, Balkans) were much more dated, yet much more powerful than say the M1 Garand which was almost a hybridized design of a traditional bolt action rifle (mainly in length, rifling and clip usage), but with a semi-automatic firing mechanism.
Guided Missiles and Traditional firearms are not in the same category of weaponry.
One is truly defined as a weapon of war, the other is not. But I’m nitpicking.
They are ‘technically’ not illegal in that you can own one, but the guidance systems are proprietary and owned by the military. A lot of eminent domain going on there. If you want something akin to an RPG-7 (unguided) you can absolutely get one and the ammunition, provided you can actually find a seller, let alone the damned ammunition for them but you have to Get a federal license for it, as well as approval from the ATF, not to mention much more extensive fees etc…) They are traditionally only used in war, and are much more dangerous for the end user, as well as others than firearms. For the most part, a firearm is not classed as such a weapon of war as it has many other users, Sports and Hunting, Hobby, Self Defense, and National defense. Collecting them can be dangerous and old ordnance can become unpredictable, It’s impractical for it to be used for sports, hunting with it will obliterate and thus render useless your prey, it is impractical to shoot a home invader with one due to obvious reasons and even in National Defense they are limited due to inaccuracy, range, logistics (re-supply, storage etc.) They are not “practical” and have limited use in just destroying structures and soft targets and air/ground vehicles. That is why they are illegal to use in many jurisdictions (mostly varies by state), but there are ways to own it if you have enough willpower to get through all of regulation and red tape and have property large enough to use them.
It is also legal to own flamethrowers in most states in case you were curious, whether pre-assembled or the kind you can build with another hardware store trip, and tremendously easy and cheap to make fuel for them) Google it!
Also, Miniguns manufactured before 1985 (I believe thats the date) and ammunition are legal to own as well as certain types of mortars, cannons and grenade launchers, not to mention Tanks, APC’s and old Military Aircraft! Its the pre-made ammunition that is difficult to find, but it can be made with ease from what I’ve read (There is this book about the Siege Of Leningrad which describes the improvisation by the Russians when the Germans cut off their supply lines, even cutting bread with sawdust and distilling a type of tank hydraulic fluid into alcohol for drinking and fuel, improvised grenades and mortars, PTRD rounds etc, I’m trying to remember the name of it, a really good read Written by a Russian, a child of a Russian soldier I believe.)
They are all here to stay and no amount of banning will get rid of them, it will just trigger (pun intended) an uprising and their use. The key to all of this nonsense is to find a way to keep privacy and civil rights (including property rights) in balance and fair while also finding out which piece of shit is going to use these weapons for nefarious deeds instead of when or if they need to be used in defense of self or country, an ideal in which most legitimate owners actually hold dear.
I have a laugh every single time these clowns on the media talk about taking the guns away, about how suppressors (“silencers”, a misnomer) and bump stocks improve efficacy and that the AR-15 Platform is an “assault” weapon because it looks scary and modern and doesn’t have a wooded stock and browned steel.
None of that is true, or will happen, quite the opposite actually.
EDIT: Sorry for the long post, trying to make up for lost time, haven’t been on much.
The USA’s democracy is so unstable that it requires 40,000 deaths per year to protect it?
Bullshit. 2nd Amendment bullshit.