gun control rant thread

Anti-stance wrote:

tuna55 wrote: .....more dangerous/deadly cars...

....When the "you don't need to have an assault rifle" stuff came out I immediately said "Well no one needs a Ferrari and you can buy those".....

Yes, you can buy one, but you cannot operate one without a license.

Not really an analogis argument and I think self-defeating to the point you are trying to make (If I am reading that correctly). Most will claim gun ownership is a right, but car operation is a well regulated privilege.

For example, you cannot go out and buy an 18 wheeler and drive it around legally. Even if you have a car license you still need a special license for a large truck. Driving the lowest powered car legally still requires a licensing process.

What you are effectively arguing is that it is reasonable to regulate weapons and require licensing to operate them since both weapons and cars are potentially dangerous if operating incorrectly. I don't think that is the point you were trying to make though. I don't think you are saying people should not require licensing to drive.

aircooled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote:

tuna55 wrote: .....more dangerous/deadly cars...

....When the "you don't need to have an assault rifle" stuff came out I immediately said "Well no one needs a Ferrari and you can buy those".....

Yes, you can buy one, but you cannot operate one without a license. Not really an analogis argument and I think self-defeating to the point you are trying to make (If I am reading that correctly). Most will claim gun ownership is a right, but car operation is a well regulated privilege. For example, you cannot go out and buy an 18 wheeler and drive it around legally. Even if you have a car license you still need a special license for a large truck. Driving the lowest powered car legally still requires a licensing process. What you are effectively arguing is that it is reasonable to regulate weapons and require licensing to operate them since both weapons and cars are potentially dangerous if operating incorrectly. I don't think that is the point you were trying to make though. I don't think you are saying people should not require licensing to drive.

Do I need a different license to cut my steak as that knife is different to the one I spread butter with, but both can potentially kill.

Now as for rocks, hefting a larger one made of granite is definitely more potentially dangerous than the sand in your trucks at the beach, so by this definition the granite must now be licensed for use but the sand is an annoyance only so it can be freely used.

Now as for women... oh hell no, not going there

Now, remind me again. . . Under the first amendment, which religions am I prohibited from practicing? Where is this list posted?

aussiesmg wrote: ....Do I need a different license to cut my steak as that knife is different to the one I spread butter with, but both can potentially kill.....

Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere no mater what you believe (most accept that anti-aircraft missiles are not appropriate for the common citizen for example), but I still contend that using a generally accepted, well regulated item as an example of why you should not regulate something is a bit silly.

BTW - automatic weapons have another danger no one talks about:

aircooled wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: ....Do I need a different license to cut my steak as that knife is different to the one I spread butter with, but both can potentially kill.....

Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere no mater what you believe (most accept that anti-aircraft missiles are not appropriate for the common citizen for example), but I still contend that using a generally accepted, well regulated item as an example of why you should not regulate something is a bit silly.

Spigot mortars, howitzers and cannons were available at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Common citizen ownership and illegal use was rampant in early America. . . not! Pesky common sense!

Comparing guns (proper terminology for mortars, etc.) and anti-aircraft weapons (there are more types than missiles) to semi-auto weapons is taking the topic out of proportion (or I believe that's the proper terminology used back in college philosophy days). The point that aussiesmg is making is why should there be a difference between two similar rifles simply for that fact that one looks more evil than the other.

Now, bantering about the term "well regulated" without understanding the proper context is a cringe-worthy offence to me. This section of the amendment did not pertain to the equipment (actually a new one to me) and from the time frame regulated meant "well practiced". However, what does mean the same today as it did back then is "shall not be infringed".

Now, here's a little quiz:

Can anybody tell me which of the enumerated rights specifies that they are the rights of the people and not the federal government?

Bonus points if you know which one says you can't screw with the other nine. . .

aircooled wrote: BTW - automatic weapons have another danger no one talks about:

Oh, I've talked about it. . . hell, I've danced around screaming with my arms behind my back inside my BDU blouse!

You need a license to operate a car because its a far, far, far more deadly weapon. Physics is our friend here. Specifically the formula for finding the kinetic energy of an object in motion KE=1/2MV^2.

An AK-47 bullet has about 2000J of energy, as I recall, 5.56 NATO/.223 is around the same.

How about a 3500lb(~1600Kg) passenger sedan at 55 mph(~25m/s)?

E=(1/2)(1600)(25^2)= 500000J So a car cruising on a backroad is capable of inflicting about the same amount of damage as 250 rounds of AK ammo, that's a lot of ammo, ammo is heavy, not to mention that the gun would have caught fire halfway through trying to use up that ammo as quickly as possible in a semi automatic weapon, you wouldn't hit much shooting that rapidly either.

Now lets step the speed up to 100mph (~45 m/s), 1620000J, 810 AK rounds, or 27 loaded 30 rd magazines, more than a man can feasibly carry, let alone fire.

Guns are really quite weak objects, but mixing science and politics is against the rules.

phaze1todd wrote: Comparing guns (proper terminology for mortars, etc.) and anti-aircraft weapons (there are more types than missiles) to semi-auto weapons is taking the topic out of proportion...

Yes, that was my point.

...The point that aussiesmg is making is why should there be a difference between two similar rifles simply for that fact that one looks more evil than the other....

You are correct, I misread and thought he was comparing them to guns. Making the above hyperbole unnecessary.

Now, bantering about the term "well regulated" without understanding the proper context is a cringe-worthy offence to me. This section of the amendment did not pertain to the equipment (actually a new one to me) and from the time frame regulated meant "well practiced". However, what does mean the same today as it did back then is "shall not be infringed".

Not sure where you got that from (EDIT: oh, wait I see it. I was not referring to the text of the amendment but rather simply the concept), but a "well practiced" militia is also not a bunch of random citizens with various weapons who have no organization what so ever.

aircooled wrote:

phaze1todd wrote: Comparing guns (proper terminology for mortars, etc.) and anti-aircraft weapons (there are more types than missiles) to semi-auto weapons is taking the topic out of proportion...

Yes, that was my point.

...The point that aussiesmg is making is why should there be a difference between two similar rifles simply for that fact that one looks more evil than the other....

You are correct, I misread and thought he was comparing them to guns. Making the above hyperbole unnecessary.

Now, bantering about the term "well regulated" without understanding the proper context is a cringe-worthy offence to me. This section of the amendment did not pertain to the equipment (actually a new one to me) and from the time frame regulated meant "well practiced". However, what does mean the same today as it did back then is "shall not be infringed".

Not sure where you got that from (I was not referring to the text of the amendment but rather simply the concept), but a "well practiced" militia is also not a bunch of random citizens with various weapons who have no organization what so ever.

Actually, that was our militia back then. . . it was an element of surprise that was underestimated by the British

Kenny_McCormic wrote: You need a license to operate a car because its a far, far, far more deadly weapon....

Again (and I don't mean to dominate the conversation here, so I apologize for that), I think you are going down an interesting road here.

You are saying how dangerous something is dictates how well it should be regulated (not referring to 2 A here). This is essentially the same argument the gun control people are making.

I am sure there are at least a few examples of things that are less dangerous then guns that are regulated.

But you are agreeing with me that it is all about where you draw the line (there is always a line).

BTW - do you people sleep? I am on the west coast and it's late here!

I draw the line at shoulder fired, so .50 BMG or so. I'm bored and can't sleep.

aircooled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote:

tuna55 wrote: .....more dangerous/deadly cars...

....When the "you don't need to have an assault rifle" stuff came out I immediately said "Well no one needs a Ferrari and you can buy those".....

Yes, you can buy one, but you cannot operate one without a license. Not really an analogis argument and I think self-defeating to the point you are trying to make (If I am reading that correctly). Most will claim gun ownership is a right, but car operation is a well regulated privilege. For example, you cannot go out and buy an 18 wheeler and drive it around legally. Even if you have a car license you still need a special license for a large truck. Driving the lowest powered car legally still requires a licensing process. What you are effectively arguing is that it is reasonable to regulate weapons and require licensing to operate them since both weapons and cars are potentially dangerous if operating incorrectly. I don't think that is the point you were trying to make though. I don't think you are saying people should not require licensing to drive.

Maybe I should fill you in on the rest of the conversation before that part of the debate. I told him I see no problem with titling a weapon like a car and having proper training before being able to operate a weapon.

You decided to take one the part of the comment that I posted and fill in the blanks with the "typical" gun owner thoughts. My statement was only about prohibiting someone from buying weapons not registering or licensing. If you go back a few pages you will see I am just repeating myself with this post.

aircooled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote:

tuna55 wrote: .....more dangerous/deadly cars...

....When the "you don't need to have an assault rifle" stuff came out I immediately said "Well no one needs a Ferrari and you can buy those".....

Yes, you can buy one, but you cannot operate one without a license.

You certainly CAN operate a high performance car without a licence, so long as you're doing it on completely private property. The NHRA's Jr. Dragster program would not exist if that were not the case.

Perhaps there's a middle path everyone could agree to; we could allow such weapons to be used on private property, but not at public ranges.

Wow, a couple of you guys are crazy. It's a great analogy. I get that driving is a privilege and that owning a gun is a right. I got hat when I made it. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with driving, just owning. I was saying that we are attempting to regulate a explicit right more than we regulate car ownership and that every idiot out there saying things like "Why do you need an AR for..." needs to consider the same question when applied to Ferraris, 370Zs, etc. Nobody needs a fast car, in fact, they are illegal to operate that way. This crazy DiFi bill is analogous to outlawing the sale and possession of any car capable of exceeding the speed limit.

In reply to tuna55:

You think we could borrow your senator?

In reply to tuna55:

Oh, I agree with you 100%.

Anti-stance wrote: In reply to tuna55: Oh, I agree with you 100%.

Yeah, I didn't mean you. I didn't bother to identify anyone, sorry. I saw that you used that exact example with a coworker - it's a good one. If you're going to allow 'need' to determine law, we could go on forever:

Do you really 'need' that iPhone?

Do you really 'need' those fresh fruits when freeze dried stuff will work?

Do you really 'need' faster internet speeds?

etc...

I thought cars worked best with this crowd.

Bobzilla wrote: In reply to tuna55: You think we could borrow your senator?

I think he's staying. He was picking his kids up from school when we were on the phone.

I DO recommend that you cite this bill and those like it in a letter to yours, though, you may find some traction. I didn't see Indiana on the list I created. GO for it. make some change.

Anti-stance wrote: ...You decided to take one the part of the comment that I posted and fill in the blanks with the "typical" gun owner thoughts. My statement was only about prohibiting someone from buying weapons not registering or licensing. If you go back a few pages you will see I am just repeating myself with this post.

OK, cool. That is far more reasonable. I apologize. Listening to people argue about this in the media gives a person an entirely different impression what the "typical" gun owner thinks, which is far different the the typical owner here.

JoeyM wrote: You certainly CAN operate a high performance car without a licence, so long as you're doing it on completely private property. The NHRA's Jr. Dragster program would not exist if that were not the case. Perhaps there's a middle path everyone could agree to; we could allow such weapons to be used on private property, but not at public ranges.

An excellent point.

aircooled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: ...You decided to take one the part of the comment that I posted and fill in the blanks with the "typical" gun owner thoughts. My statement was only about prohibiting someone from buying weapons not registering or licensing. If you go back a few pages you will see I am just repeating myself with this post.

OK, cool. That is far more reasonable. I apologize. Listening to people argue about this in the media gives a person an entirely different impression what the "typical" gun owner thinks, which is far different the the typical owner here.

We ALL suffer by using the "fill-in-the-blank" process at one time or another.

Instead of asking for clarification, "we" tend to apply pre-conceived notions that fit what we "believe" the other-siders actually think. Sometimes we're right, more often we're wrong and keep on reinforcing stereotypes.

Just an observation..........

aircooled wrote: Listening to people argue about this in the media gives a person an entirely different impression what the "typical" gun owner thinks, which is far different the the typical owner here.

The media hasn't shown a decent representation of a "typical gun owner" in 30 years. Why do I say that? Because every site I visit says the same thing. "You guys are the exception" blah blah blah.

No, I think the tards are the exception and we're the representation of what"normal" is in this case.

aircooled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: ...You decided to take one the part of the comment that I posted and fill in the blanks with the "typical" gun owner thoughts. My statement was only about prohibiting someone from buying weapons not registering or licensing. If you go back a few pages you will see I am just repeating myself with this post.

OK, cool. That is far more reasonable. I apologize. Listening to people argue about this in the media gives a person an entirely different impression what the "typical" gun owner thinks, which is far different the the typical owner here.

Fair enough. I consider myself a pretty moderate gun owner.

aircooled wrote: For example, you cannot go out and buy an 18 wheeler and drive it around legally. Even if you have a car license you still need a special license for a large truck. Driving the lowest powered car legally still requires a licensing process.

You can in my state if you live on a farm.......don't even need a CDL to drive it.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I draw the line at shoulder fired, so .50 BMG or so. I'm bored and can't sleep.

You don't think you could shoulderfire the 20mm rifle? It only makes the fiddy look like something a little kid would play with.....for the record, its NFA and classed as either Destructive Device or AOW.....