Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[gunthernehmen]

"The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys," and now the number and size of their gunz.

Skimming through this thread I've noticed that most of the gun rights posters quickly get frustrated with a debate and resort to name calling and fabrications. Just like fascism, when your ideas fail, you resort to violence.

Somewhere in this thread I saw someone claim that gun ownership was a human right and that that belief was supported by the US constitution. That was one of the funniest things I read on this thread. Food, water and air are human rights. Gunz are tools.

It's almost as if they feel their manhood is being taken away.

Exactly

and then there is that unnatural attachment to inanimate objects

So I can only conclude that Lincoln Duncan and the flower carnal are both pro gun activists that are POSING as grabbers

 

[todski28]

I'm an Independent with equal contempt for all politicians.

Spoken like a true individual buht having contempt does not help control the state of your country, its a fucked up part of democracy sometimes you cop it in the eye on one thing but gain in other areas.

Cant please everyone
Bitches bitch etc ad naeseum. Rarely if ever will politica fully align with your out look but if enough does to facilitate your fundamental beliefs then you vote with that in mind.

We're all people but some ideas are judged better than others for a reason.

 

[Hypoxia]

Your attempts at put downs are almost as pathetic as your fear and need to compensate.

Coochy the slimy traitor has called for North Korea, still formally at war with the US, to launch a nuclear attack on the US. Pay him no heed. Feed him radioactive kimchee.

 

[todski28]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=88975827#post88975827

 

[KimGordon67]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=88975827#post88975827

Did you have an actual point to make?

 

[todski28]

Did you have an actual point to make?

Only that banning guns as I stated earlier in this thread would make knives a more prevalent weapon to be used in attacks, murders and violent crime in general, it seemed amusingly apt to me that an article demanding we now ban knives and acid because of those attacks in london seemed to make a relevant point to my original statement.

the problem is never with the tools its with the individual wielding it, their motives and the why to me is as important as the how.

Removal of guns will reduce the death by guns themselves it will not stop criminality nor violent and agressive behaviour.

We are a pretty stupid species despite all of that a natural tendency of trust, honesty, integrity and personal responsibilty have helped build a pretty decent society, to the point where we are looking at disarming ourselves of anything dangerous.

Its an interesting conclusion to come to lol

 

[KimGordon67]

Only that banning guns as I stated earlier in this thread would make knives a more prevalent weapon to be used in attacks, murders and violent crime in general, it seemed amusingly apt to me that an article demanding we now ban knives and acid because of those attacks in london seemed to make a relevant point to my original statement.

the problem is never with the tools its with the individual wielding it, their motives and the why to me is as important as the how.

Removal of guns will reduce the death by guns themselves it will not stop criminality nor violent and agressive behaviour.

We are a pretty stupid species despite all of that a natural tendency of trust, honesty, integrity and personal responsibilty have helped build a pretty decent society, to the point where we are looking at disarming ourselves of anything dangerous.

Its an interesting conclusion to come to lol

I think you should read pretty much everything Blue has written in this thread. He makes the relevant points way more eloquently than I can. But basically, no.

 

[todski28]

I think you should read pretty much everything Blue has written in this thread. He makes the relevant points way more eloquently than I can. But basically, no.

As in no to the whole comment or no to the point that knives will take place of gun violence?

 

[KimGordon67]

As in no to the whole comment or no to the point that knives will take place of gun violence?

No, knives won't take the place of gun violence.

 

[todski28]

No, knives won't take the place of gun violence.

"London has seen a dramatic uptick in murder rates, surpassing even New York City in number of homicides every month since the beginning of 2018. It has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and, technically, knives carried "without good reason" are off limits to anyone under the age of 18."

Direct quote from the article.....

I see correlation i.e. strict gun controll laws=
I see causation i.e. murder via knife

I will go through and read blue don't get me wrong but a flat out no denial is a little shallow a response from my perspective since see above

 

[KimGordon67]

"London has seen a dramatic uptick in murder rates, surpassing even New York City in number of homicides every month since the beginning of 2018. It has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and, technically, knives carried "without good reason" are off limits to anyone under the age of 18."

Direct quote from the article.....

I see correlation i.e. strict gun controll laws=
I see causation i.e. murder via knife

I will go through and read blue don't get me wrong but a flat out no denial is a little shallow a response from my perspective since see above

You are doing research where n=1, and implying a huge amount of causation on the basis of correlation.
The UK has never HAD widespread gun ownership. But the recent surge in knife violence is, apparently ... well, recent. So something's happened in the UK recently to increase violence ... like, oh, I don't know, increasing level of inequality, maybe, a la the London riots. (Am I just repeating myself here?)
But you can't just say 'if the US took away guns, people would just use knives instead'. Kids are much less likely to accidentally kills themselves with guns. It's extremely difficult (not impossible, but extremely difficult) to kill a bunch of school kids with a knife. Cops won't knife people to death in the heat of a chase nearly so often. Drive-by stabbings are problematic at best ... do you want me to go on?

 

[Hypoxia]

No, knives won't take the place of gun violence.

Just wait till full-auto knife launchers hit the streets.

 

[KimGordon67]

Just wait till full-auto knife launchers hit the streets.

At least they don't need silencers.

 

[mark_j]

US judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

In a 47-page ruling, Young cited former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who died in 2016, as having observed that weapons that are most useful in military service may be banned. Young said the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle was such a weapon.

An opinion with weight this time.

Having read that decision, yes, it's true, Young did use that passage in his justification. However I have some problems with HOW he arrived there.

If he applied that same standard for determining "useful in military service" he could technically ban just about any rifle made in the last 125 years. This would include all of the following bolt actions:

.30-40 Krag-Jorgensen
.303 SMLE Lee-Enfield
Mauser Mod. 93,96 and 98 (and all their derivatives)
Enfield P-14 and M1917 (later became the Remington Mod 30 and Mod 70)
1903 Springfield .30-06

All of which were originally designed as "military rifles" and would fall under Young's interpretation of "weapons that are most useful in military service" (maybe not in the modern sense but Young didn't differentiate between what would be considered modern and historical. In fact he used a purely historical perspective in his justification).

Colt, after they bought the design from Armalite who failed to sell the AR platform to the military, marketed the AR-15 as a civilian version of the M-16. It looked the same, functioned basically the same (minus the select fire option) but it was never intended to be a military rifle.

 

[My I]

Having read that decision, yes, it's true, Young did use that passage in his justification. However I have some problems with HOW he arrived there.

If he applied that same standard for determining "useful in military service" he could technically ban just about any rifle made in the last 125 years. This would include all of the following bolt actions:

.30-40 Krag-Jorgensen
.303 SMLE Lee-Enfield
Mauser Mod. 93,96 and 98 (and all their derivatives)
Enfield P-14 and M1917 (later became the Remington Mod 30 and Mod 70)
1903 Springfield .30-06

All of which were originally designed as "military rifles" and would fall under Young's interpretation of "weapons that are most useful in military service" (maybe not in the modern sense but Young didn't differentiate between what would be considered modern and historical. In fact he used a purely historical perspective in his justification).

Colt, after they bought the design from Armalite who failed to sell the AR platform to the military, marketed the AR-15 as a civilian version of the M-16. It looked the same, functioned basically the same (minus the select fire option) but it was never intended to be a military rifle.

You could, by those standards add the Winchester model 1894 lever action, The Trap Door Springfield single shot, the Henry and Spencer rifles and so on.

 

[Hypoxia]

You could, by those standards add the Winchester model 1894 lever action, The Trap Door Springfield single shot, the Henry and Spencer rifles and so on.

Need you carry any of those loaded onto a subway car?

 

[My I]

Need you carry any of those loaded onto a subway car?

How many people are carrying AR15s or ANY rifles on subway cars? Not LEGAL.

 

[gunthernehmen]

How many people are carrying AR15s or ANY rifles on subway cars? Not LEGAL.

Has it even ever happened?

I know people carry handguns on subways (duh) but I've certainly never seen a rifle there. Well, once or twice, carried by police.

 

[oggbashan]

"London has seen a dramatic uptick in murder rates, surpassing even New York City in number of homicides every month since the beginning of 2018. It has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and, technically, knives carried "without good reason" are off limits to anyone under the age of 18."

Direct quote from the article.....

I see correlation i.e. strict gun controll laws=
I see causation i.e. murder via knife

I will go through and read blue don't get me wrong but a flat out no denial is a little shallow a response from my perspective since see above

The London statistics are a recent upsurge after a low point. If you go back a few years further the rates were as high as they are now.

The New York statistics are a matter for congratulation for a series of effective measures implemented over a sustained period.

Compare London with Chicago? Or other US major cities?

We are not happy about what has been happening in London but our government and the police are acting to try to address the problem.

 

[My I]

The London statistics are a recent upsurge after a low point. If you go back a few years further the rates were as high as they are now.

The New York statistics are a matter for congratulation for a series of effective measures implemented over a sustained period.

Compare London with Chicago? Or other US major cities?

We are not happy about what has been happening in London but our government and the police are acting to try to address the problem.

Maybe the proposed ban on kitchen knives with sharp points will work?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Spoken like a true individual buht having contempt does not help control the state of your country, its a fucked up part of democracy sometimes you cop it in the eye on one thing but gain in other areas.

Cant please everyone
Bitches bitch etc ad naeseum. Rarely if ever will politica fully align with your out look but if enough does to facilitate your fundamental beliefs then you vote with that in mind.

We're all people but some ideas are judged better than others for a reason.

Prior to November 2016 I was an activist for causes for which I have strong feelings. If Clinton had won or just about anyone else besides Trump or Cruz, I would have gone back to advancing my agenda. Normal D& R shit is just background noise. Trump and his supporters, the base and the billionaires have a far right agenda that threatens democracy. The gun boys are just a small part of that base I’d like to smack the shit out of.

 

[oggbashan]

Maybe the proposed ban on kitchen knives with sharp points will work?

I have enough knives at home and in my garage to supply a couple of gangs.

Many decades ago I used to wear an eight-inch bladed sheath knife as part of my Boy Scout uniform. Later I qualified to being allowed to add a hand axe or machete to my belt.

I still have the 24" machete I used to wear. It was made by Wilkinson Sword. It was and is razor-sharp. As a Senior Scout I used to shave with it as a party trick.

 

[My I]

I have enough knives at home and in my garage to supply a couple of gangs.

Many decades ago I used to wear an eight-inch bladed sheath knife as part of my Boy Scout uniform. Later I qualified to being allowed to add a hand axe or machete to my belt.

I still have the 24" machete I used to wear. It was made by Wilkinson Sword. It was and is razor-sharp. As a Senior Scout I used to shave with it as a party trick.

Oh, my WORD!!! You must be some kind of psychotic, homicidal maniac! Why would ANYONE need a 24"machete? Especially one that is "razor sharp"? Why you could cut someone's head off with that in one swipe! You need psychiatric evaluation! You scare me.

[/sarcasm]

 

[oggbashan]

Oh, my WORD!!! You must be some kind of psychotic, homicidal maniac! Why would ANYONE need a 24"machete? Especially one that is "razor sharp"? Why you could cut someone's head off with that in one swipe! You need psychiatric evaluation! You scare me.

[/sarcasm]

I wore it, as part of my full uniform, in Trafalgar Square for a St George's Day parade, and in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace when acting as a car park attendant for Royal Garden Parties.

In those far-off days, being a Scout meant that one was trusted to behave sensibly (and keep the machete in its sheath).

Now? Security professionals would shit their pants.

 

[My I]

I wore it, as part of my full uniform, in Trafalgar Square for a St George's Day parade, and in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace when acting as a car park attendant for Royal Garden Parties.

In those far-off days, being a Scout meant that one was trusted to behave sensibly (and keep the machete in its sheath).

Now? Security professionals would shit their pants.

As they would here. And the Liberals here would be outraged that you would be allowed to carry such a weapon in public. But I am facing the same thing right now as a gun owner. Irrational fear has completely displaced reason and logic as reason for taking away rights.

BTW: I was in Boy Scouts here. Didn't quite make Eagle Scout, gave it up at 15 as I had other interests. But it was a good experience and instilled in me a certain sense of responsibility. Not just for my OWN action but the good of all. Prob'ly part of what drove me to enlist. Another good experience that further instilled those Boy Scout Virtues.