english is my 3rd language, sry for that, but what i described is what i meant as bolt-action. that extra trigger thing which you have to pull to shoot again...should have been clear after i even posted a freaking picture
First off, I've been to Germany (specifically, Kiel and Wilhelmshaven). Never had an issue with language barrier - every German there spoke very good English.
Second, the other German in this thread has no problem communicating in English.
Third, you never posted a picture. And the description you gave was the description of a semiautomatic.
also i never said that the AR-15 fires multiple rounds per shot, i just asked if it does
You asked a question that was written a a rhetorical question. Specifically the following:
Quote from Vistella »
can it shoot more then 1 bullet by pressing the trigger once?
yes? so its (for me) and assault rifle and not a hunting rifle
When you ask a question and immediately answer your own question, it becomes rhetorical question that is used to try and make a point. By the way that quote is written, you are stating that an AR-15 can fire more than one round per trigger pull, and as such it is an assault rifle and not a hunting rifle.
Multiple people have told you that you are wrong and that the AR-15 is semiautomatic. You also quoted Wikipedia earlier, and pointed to one sentence that said the first AR-15s were selective fire weapons, to back up your point that the AR-15 is an assault rifle. I then took that exact same Wikipedia entry, and showed you where it says that the AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle and that the selective fire versions are called M-16s.
The M16A4 (the current model) has a safe, semi, and burst settings. It is possible, by filing down a certain pin, to turn the weapon into a fully-automatic variant, which is illegal in the United States.
But let's be honest, would criminals care?
It's my understanding that even having a burst setting makes the weapon illegal anyways. Burst is classified as an automatic mode of firing, since one trigger pull leads to more than one round firing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
@Sol_X
"THE LEFT WING HAS SPOKEN! WIKIPEDIA IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR DEBATES!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer
Third, Wikipedia is a fine source of info.
(Quote taken from the thread about Gun Control in the Debate Forum)"
Since this comes from this thread, last night I did some heavy research into crime statistics. Wiki was the only thing that compiled information. Some of the sources had even 404'd, so the legitimacy can be called into question easily. However, the other side of this is that the info wasn't anywhere else.
then why is it better for everyone have his own gun rather then storing the guns at a central place which you can gain access to if someone is invading?
Because whoever is at the central place controls ALL THE GUNS.
"THE LEFT WING HAS SPOKEN! WIKIPEDIA IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR DEBATES!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer
Third, Wikipedia is a fine source of info.
(Quote taken from the thread about Gun Control in the Debate Forum)"
Since this comes from this thread, last night I did some heavy research into crime statistics. Wiki was the only thing that compiled information. Some of the sources had even 404'd. The other side is that the info wasn't anywhere else.
Is this bad data? Should we throw it out just because it is wiki?
I've always considered Wikipedia to be a fine source of information, since most of the data is vetted. And I've typically been told by many members of the left wing that they will not accept Wikipedia in debates, and usually after Wikipedia contradicts their position.
But apparently it's a fine source when it supports the left wing position.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
The second amendment doesn't exist so people could protect themselves from the government.
How not?
The Militia is the responsibility of the State,
The militia being a force composed of ordinary citizens.
If people are going to talk about the Second Amendment and original intent, there it is. That's the original intent. Interpret it as you will, but the guns weren't meant to be a hedge against tyranny.
It would be myopic, and quite frankly disingenuous, to try to claim that the people who just fought a war with their government to not have "war with government" in mind.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. So say all handguns suddenly dissappeared. If an individual wants to murder another, the other statistics will simply grow in numbers.
Not to mention: what percentage of deaths per year are homicides?
Also, "Vehicular" is not a category there, which I thought was strange. I guess they don't count cars as weapons.
Er, we're not an island. Canada sent a pretty effective message one time as to how not-island-like at all we are.
Yeah...the US is an island. That's hilarious. We are an island...except for Canada above us comprising the other half of North America, which is also essentially connected to Russia (while the land bridge is not truly there anymore, you can damn near wade from Alaska to Russia in some areas that water is so shallow). And we got Central America underneath us. And beneath them, we have South America.
America is not an island by any stretch of the imagination.
And I'm just expanding on your point Highroller. I'm too much of a lazy American to go find Vistella's post and quote it.
The Militia is the responsibility of the State, and the highest authority it responds to is the Governor. The decentralized pattern of militia management only ended with the Civil War. The US did not have a professional army until then, which is why it got its ass kicked so badly during the War of 1812, among other reasons.
The Militia Act of 1903 would like to have a word with you, specifically the part that creates the "reserve militia" or "unorganized militia" that consists of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, and all former servicemen up to the age of 65.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
which is also essentially connected to Russia (while the land bridge is not truly there anymore, you can damn near wade from Alaska to Russia in some areas that water is so shallow).
You must have LONG legs. The shallower points of the Bering Strait are still around 100 feet deep.
You must have LONG legs. The shallower points of the Bering Strait are still around 100 feet deep.
As someone who has taken a swim in over 16,000 feet of water (swim call on my ship in the Pacific during my time in the Navy), 100 feet is pretty shallow.
I prefer "south of us". Underneath and beneath, in addition to being inaccurate, sounds derogatory.
Actually, it is accurate. If you look at how the US sits on the planet on it's axis, Central and South America are beneath us based on the curvature of the planet. And a lot of words are derogatory...if we somehow managed to use only words that are not derogatory in any context, our vocabulary would shrink dramatically overnight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
then why is it better for everyone have his own gun rather then storing the guns at a central place which you can gain access to if someone is invading?
those 2 or more days you have as foresight are more then enough to get everyone a gun, yet all the accidents happening by private guns are taken away
you could even send out military trucks with lots or rifles in them to every city when the invasion happens though i dont know how scattered military bases are in the US so i doubt this will work
-Because it is a constitutional right here.
-Because that same gun doubles as home defense
-Because, if there ever were an invasion, it would be stupid to locate all the guns centrally, so that an invader could just secure that facility.
-Because, if one sees an invasion coming, wouldn't the time be better spent organizing and planning, rather than passing out hundreds of thousands of guns?
-Because Switzerland. Sweet, blessed Switzerland, where Militia reservists are required to keep their military-issued, fully automatic (hold the trigger, spray bullets) rifles in their homes, along with ammunition. And yet again, Switzerland has a lower incidence of gun crime, yet again demonstrating that gun control isn't the solution; the solution is addressing society's shortcomings.
And yeah, the US isn't an island. In fact, plenty of violence from Mexico's drug cartels has spilled over the border.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
i know its hard to read a discussion in context, but try it some time, it helps
@SolX: yes, i did indeed post a picture...so youre not reading my posts, why shall i read yours?
You added that picture after I had already begun typing my response to you (you edited the post at 12:55, and my post went up at 12:57). Editing a post and then responding to my response with "I used a picture to show you what I meant!" is like me telling a cop "But officer, I began slowing down when I saw your lights. Why should I still get a speeding ticket?"
I have read every single one of your posts. And I've, politely at that, pointed out how you are wrong in every single one of your posts. Others have told you that you are wrong as well. And your basic response is "I don't care about technical differences, all that matters is that I think it's an assault rifle and you shouldn't own assault rifles."
Clearly, you are just ignoring all the people who have told you that you are wrong, and continue spewing your incorrect beliefs as if you're right and we're all wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Also, "Vehicular" is not a category there, which I thought was strange. I guess they don't count cars as weapons.
This made me think of something. What if instead of a gun the CO shooter had rigged up a large car to drive into the side of the theater with a pile of homemade explosives stacked in it. It probably would have killed more people and definitely would have done more damage. Whether it be remote controlled or if he had to drive it in I dont think anyone would be asking if this means we should ban cars.
I imagine it's because a lot of people trivialize the entertainment benefit of guns. Is a semi automatic AR-15 necessary for hunting? No... is it necessary for home protection? you could probably find something else. But is it fun as heck to use a drum of 100 rounds as fast as your finger will let you. It is my belief that there is nothing proving that banning firearms will decrease violent deaths in this country, therefore it is also my belief that there is no reason to ban a popular form of entertainment.
As someone who has taken a swim in over 16,000 feet of water (swim call on my ship in the Pacific during my time in the Navy), 100 feet is pretty shallow.
Actually, it is accurate. If you look at how the US sits on the planet on it's axis, Central and South America are beneath us based on the curvature of the planet.
Beneath us is rock. They are south of us. The fact that they are south of us on a map is completely arbitrary anyways. You can turn a globe upside down and it's still correct.
I didn't say you COULD wade across it. I said you DAMNED NEAR COULD wade across it. As I said before, 100 feet of water is not that deep. You could easily swim the Strait today (if you can account for current and the cold), and previously people have migrated to North America from Siberia using the Strait...when it could be waded. I'm referring to the migration of the ancestors of the modern American Indians.
Beneath us is rock. They are south of us. The fact that they are south of us on a map is completely arbitrary anyways. You can turn a globe upside down and it's still correct.
Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they are beneath me - physically, not figuratively. That is how I was raised and taught in the 1980s and 1990s. Just like as far as I'm concerned, gender is what you are born as, not what you feel like you should be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they are beneath me - physically, not figuratively. That is how I was raised and taught in the 1980s and 1990s. Just like as far as I'm concerned, gender is what you are born as, not what you feel like you should be.
You wouldn't say that a plane flying overhead is north of you, would you? Words have meanings, and saying that Mexico is 'beneath' the US is incorrect.
You wouldn't say that a plane flying overhead is north of you, would you? Words have meanings, and saying that Mexico is 'beneath' the US is incorrect.
North, South, East, and West are compass points and are based off the magnetic north and magnetic south poles.
Of course a plane flying overhead is above me. Just like because of the curvature of the planet, Mexico is below (or beneath) my current physical location on the planet (based on the popular axis that globes are shown on).
But regardless, we are certainly off topic right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
The decentralized pattern of militia management only ended with the Civil War. The US did not have a professional army until then, which is why it got its ass kicked so badly during the War of 1812, among other reasons.
What the heck are you talking about? The Continental Army was founded in 1775, and the United States Army was founded in 1796. In addition to the revolution, they waged the War of 1812 (though, as you note, not particularly well); it waged the Indian wars; it waged the Mexican-American War. That's an awful lot of action for an entity you say did not exist. 18th- and 19th-Century military doctrine knew well the concept of professional armies - as you've just finished telling us, the British had one that was pretty good. And the Americans, being, y'know, basically British, definitely wanted one of their own. If the Continental Army during the Revolution was often undermanned and underequipped, it was because Congress was broke, not because they had grand plans for a decentralized military.
You're right that the militias existed party as a fast-response force ("minutemen") in a world where banditry and Indian raids were still realities. But during wartime, they were intended to play a supplemental role to the regular army.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Even after the tragedy, gun control is still not popular with Americans as the latest survey results show that when asked if they would support a new Amendment to the Constitution that would rescind the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), only 31% of the general population said “Yes” with 52% saying “No.” When asked if they thought there should be new laws that require security screenings at movie theaters, 36% of our respondents said yes with 48% saying no and 16% unsure about increased security.
Well also, it seems that gun sales are soaring in Colorado.
Well also, it seems that gun sales are soaring in Colorado.
Please don't feed the...troll? Or whatever it is.
They just joined today, their very first post ever was in this thread, and they linked to a blog site. Looks like a spammer or advertiser or something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Of course a plane flying overhead is above me. Just like because of the curvature of the planet, Mexico is below (or beneath) my current physical location on the planet (based on the popular axis that globes are shown on).
If I take a marker and put two dots on a baseball, can you tell me which one is below the other? It would be a nonsensical question to ask which point is below the other.
The clouds are above you and the ground is beneath you, neither is necessarily north or south of you. Similarly, if you're in Kansas (to pick a spot in the center of the US), Canada is north of you and Mexico is south of you, but neither it above or beneath you.
Mexico is only below the US on a typical world map, not in reality.
Just like how the highly trained and better equipped British Army crushed that pesky rebellion of untrained farmers in the colonies back in the 1770s...
Wait...
The untrained farmers beat the better trained and equipped British Army.
Pesky history getting in the way of the left wing fantasy world...guess they got to rewrite the American Revolution next to have defectors from the British Army helping them win.
"better equipped" didn't mean tanks and helicopters back then. It meant guns that were more accurate.
To believe that you can draw a comparison between more accurate guns versus a ****ing air force and, did I mention tanks is asinine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
"better equipped" didn't mean tanks and helicopters back then. It meant guns that were more accurate.
To believe that you can draw a comparison between more accurate guns versus a ****ing air force and, did I mention tanks is asinine.
I believe you're arguing correctly but against the wrong context.
In reality, there is a great philosophical question to be had yes, but in the context of the spirit of the law, no there isn't.
The Militia is held under the state. That being said, the State should have access to all arms currently held under the Federal Government for use by the Militia. Conceptually this would have been ordnance, artillery, and vehicles. Most small arms, including automatic weapons, would be owned legally within any persons home.
Now, what I find funny is that the ideal which birthed this legal right isn't far fetched and all you need to do is to turn on your tv for 5 mins and watch any 24hour news network for a bright and shining example as to why this right has been extremely demonized over the last 100 years.
"better equipped" didn't mean tanks and helicopters back then. It meant guns that were more accurate.
To believe that you can draw a comparison between more accurate guns versus a ****ing air force and, did I mention tanks is asinine.
1) An Air Force is notoriously bad against scattered infantry. Especially if the infantry is under cover. So the Air Force would be useless against guerrillas in the woods harassing a patrol with long range shots.
2) The commercially available bolt action .50BMG Barrett rifle (and yes, people do use .50BMG rifles to hunt large game, and there is a Fifty Cal Shooters Association that does competitions on vacant air strips) can disable a tank with one shot. This is achieved by hitting it at any of the various "soft points" that are between the turret and main body of the tank. While a rather small point on a tank as a whole, they are large enough for a skilled marksman to hit.
I think you should watch Red Dawn. Yes, it is a movie and we know movies aren't perfect (except for movies like Gasland and SiCKO...you know, the pro-left wing propaganda films - those are 100% accurate!). But it shows what a guerrilla campaign could be like against a foreign invader (or an oppressive government).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
1) An Air Force is notoriously bad against scattered infantry. Especially if the infantry is under cover. So the Air Force would be useless against guerrillas in the woods harassing a patrol with long range shots.
2) The commercially available bolt action .50BMG Barrett rifle (and yes, people do use .50BMG rifles to hunt large game, and there is a Fifty Cal Shooters Association that does competitions on vacant air strips) can disable a tank with one shot. This is achieved by hitting it at any of the various "soft points" that are between the turret and main body of the tank. While a rather small point on a tank as a whole, they are large enough for a skilled marksman to hit.
I think you should watch Red Dawn. Yes, it is a movie and we know movies aren't perfect (except for movies like Gasland and SiCKO...you know, the pro-left wing propaganda films - those are 100% accurate!). But it shows what a guerrilla campaign could be like against a foreign invader (or an oppressive government).
Seriously, your go to argument is Red Dawn?
Until you provide me something substantial I'm just going to continue laughing at you. Also, your snide remarks about all things left wing do not an argument make. They do however look really really stupid. Just like you CONSTANTLY ***** about people stereotyping one person as the entirety of the right wing (Think: Bush) and you do the exact same thing to Timothy Mimeslayer. Are you at least cognizant of your hypocrisy?
Re: Guerilla warfare
They have RPGs, bombs, and fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting America should have those things in civilian hands as well?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Until you provide me something substantial I'm just going to continue laughing at you. Also, your snide remarks about all things left wing do not an argument make. They do however look really really stupid. Just like you CONSTANTLY ***** about people stereotyping one person as the entirety of the right wing (Think: Bush) and you do the exact same thing to Timothy Mimeslayer. Are you at least cognizant of your hypocrisy?
Re: Guerilla warfare
They have RPGs, bombs, and fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting America should have those things in civilian hands as well?
1) IED's are what the insurgencies in Iraq/Afghanistan have famously used, to good effect. You don't need proper bombs, if you have fertilizer, gunpowder and such.
2) We've already discussed in this thread, that certain rifles that are available to civilians can be converted to full-auto. Its illegal now, but in the context of a resistance, no one will care.
3) RPG's are the sort of thing which can be acquired from ambushed occupiers, or supplied by sympathetic nations providing weapons.
The point being, a primarily civilian resistance is not nearly as absurd as you make it out to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First off, I've been to Germany (specifically, Kiel and Wilhelmshaven). Never had an issue with language barrier - every German there spoke very good English.
Second, the other German in this thread has no problem communicating in English.
Third, you never posted a picture. And the description you gave was the description of a semiautomatic.
You asked a question that was written a a rhetorical question. Specifically the following:
When you ask a question and immediately answer your own question, it becomes rhetorical question that is used to try and make a point. By the way that quote is written, you are stating that an AR-15 can fire more than one round per trigger pull, and as such it is an assault rifle and not a hunting rifle.
Multiple people have told you that you are wrong and that the AR-15 is semiautomatic. You also quoted Wikipedia earlier, and pointed to one sentence that said the first AR-15s were selective fire weapons, to back up your point that the AR-15 is an assault rifle. I then took that exact same Wikipedia entry, and showed you where it says that the AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle and that the selective fire versions are called M-16s.
I and others have addressed your points multiple times, and dissected them. Accept that you have been proven wrong by multiple people and move on.
It's my understanding that even having a burst setting makes the weapon illegal anyways. Burst is classified as an automatic mode of firing, since one trigger pull leads to more than one round firing.
"THE LEFT WING HAS SPOKEN! WIKIPEDIA IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR DEBATES!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer
Third, Wikipedia is a fine source of info.
(Quote taken from the thread about Gun Control in the Debate Forum)"
Since this comes from this thread, last night I did some heavy research into crime statistics. Wiki was the only thing that compiled information. Some of the sources had even 404'd, so the legitimacy can be called into question easily. However, the other side of this is that the info wasn't anywhere else.
(Specifically talking about this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison) I could not find a similar type of side by side comparison anywhere.
Is this bad data? Should we throw it out just because it is wiki?
Er, we're not an island. Canada sent us a pretty effective message one time demonstrating exactly that.
Because whoever is at the central place controls ALL THE GUNS.
I've always considered Wikipedia to be a fine source of information, since most of the data is vetted. And I've typically been told by many members of the left wing that they will not accept Wikipedia in debates, and usually after Wikipedia contradicts their position.
But apparently it's a fine source when it supports the left wing position.
How not?
The militia being a force composed of ordinary citizens.
It would be myopic, and quite frankly disingenuous, to try to claim that the people who just fought a war with their government to not have "war with government" in mind.
Not to mention: what percentage of deaths per year are homicides?
Also, "Vehicular" is not a category there, which I thought was strange. I guess they don't count cars as weapons.
Yeah...the US is an island. That's hilarious. We are an island...except for Canada above us comprising the other half of North America, which is also essentially connected to Russia (while the land bridge is not truly there anymore, you can damn near wade from Alaska to Russia in some areas that water is so shallow). And we got Central America underneath us. And beneath them, we have South America.
America is not an island by any stretch of the imagination.
And I'm just expanding on your point Highroller. I'm too much of a lazy American to go find Vistella's post and quote it.
The Militia Act of 1903 would like to have a word with you, specifically the part that creates the "reserve militia" or "unorganized militia" that consists of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, and all former servicemen up to the age of 65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#The_reserve_militia
There are far more than two countries in what is considered North America.
You must have LONG legs. The shallower points of the Bering Strait are still around 100 feet deep.
I prefer "south of us". Underneath and beneath, in addition to being inaccurate, sounds derogatory.
I was being very simplistic. Apparently, being too accurate in responses in this thread is a bad thing.
As someone who has taken a swim in over 16,000 feet of water (swim call on my ship in the Pacific during my time in the Navy), 100 feet is pretty shallow.
Actually, it is accurate. If you look at how the US sits on the planet on it's axis, Central and South America are beneath us based on the curvature of the planet. And a lot of words are derogatory...if we somehow managed to use only words that are not derogatory in any context, our vocabulary would shrink dramatically overnight.
-Because it is a constitutional right here.
-Because that same gun doubles as home defense
-Because, if there ever were an invasion, it would be stupid to locate all the guns centrally, so that an invader could just secure that facility.
-Because, if one sees an invasion coming, wouldn't the time be better spent organizing and planning, rather than passing out hundreds of thousands of guns?
-Because Switzerland. Sweet, blessed Switzerland, where Militia reservists are required to keep their military-issued, fully automatic (hold the trigger, spray bullets) rifles in their homes, along with ammunition. And yet again, Switzerland has a lower incidence of gun crime, yet again demonstrating that gun control isn't the solution; the solution is addressing society's shortcomings.
And yeah, the US isn't an island. In fact, plenty of violence from Mexico's drug cartels has spilled over the border.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
You added that picture after I had already begun typing my response to you (you edited the post at 12:55, and my post went up at 12:57). Editing a post and then responding to my response with "I used a picture to show you what I meant!" is like me telling a cop "But officer, I began slowing down when I saw your lights. Why should I still get a speeding ticket?"
I have read every single one of your posts. And I've, politely at that, pointed out how you are wrong in every single one of your posts. Others have told you that you are wrong as well. And your basic response is "I don't care about technical differences, all that matters is that I think it's an assault rifle and you shouldn't own assault rifles."
Clearly, you are just ignoring all the people who have told you that you are wrong, and continue spewing your incorrect beliefs as if you're right and we're all wrong.
This made me think of something. What if instead of a gun the CO shooter had rigged up a large car to drive into the side of the theater with a pile of homemade explosives stacked in it. It probably would have killed more people and definitely would have done more damage. Whether it be remote controlled or if he had to drive it in I dont think anyone would be asking if this means we should ban cars.
I imagine it's because a lot of people trivialize the entertainment benefit of guns. Is a semi automatic AR-15 necessary for hunting? No... is it necessary for home protection? you could probably find something else. But is it fun as heck to use a drum of 100 rounds as fast as your finger will let you. It is my belief that there is nothing proving that banning firearms will decrease violent deaths in this country, therefore it is also my belief that there is no reason to ban a popular form of entertainment.
Yes, but you can't wade across it.
Beneath us is rock. They are south of us. The fact that they are south of us on a map is completely arbitrary anyways. You can turn a globe upside down and it's still correct.
I didn't say you COULD wade across it. I said you DAMNED NEAR COULD wade across it. As I said before, 100 feet of water is not that deep. You could easily swim the Strait today (if you can account for current and the cold), and previously people have migrated to North America from Siberia using the Strait...when it could be waded. I'm referring to the migration of the ancestors of the modern American Indians.
Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they are beneath me - physically, not figuratively. That is how I was raised and taught in the 1980s and 1990s. Just like as far as I'm concerned, gender is what you are born as, not what you feel like you should be.
You wouldn't say that a plane flying overhead is north of you, would you? Words have meanings, and saying that Mexico is 'beneath' the US is incorrect.
North, South, East, and West are compass points and are based off the magnetic north and magnetic south poles.
Of course a plane flying overhead is above me. Just like because of the curvature of the planet, Mexico is below (or beneath) my current physical location on the planet (based on the popular axis that globes are shown on).
But regardless, we are certainly off topic right now.
You're right that the militias existed party as a fast-response force ("minutemen") in a world where banditry and Indian raids were still realities. But during wartime, they were intended to play a supplemental role to the regular army.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well also, it seems that gun sales are soaring in Colorado.
Please don't feed the...troll? Or whatever it is.
They just joined today, their very first post ever was in this thread, and they linked to a blog site. Looks like a spammer or advertiser or something.
If I take a marker and put two dots on a baseball, can you tell me which one is below the other? It would be a nonsensical question to ask which point is below the other.
The clouds are above you and the ground is beneath you, neither is necessarily north or south of you. Similarly, if you're in Kansas (to pick a spot in the center of the US), Canada is north of you and Mexico is south of you, but neither it above or beneath you.
Mexico is only below the US on a typical world map, not in reality.
"better equipped" didn't mean tanks and helicopters back then. It meant guns that were more accurate.
To believe that you can draw a comparison between more accurate guns versus a ****ing air force and, did I mention tanks is asinine.
I believe you're arguing correctly but against the wrong context.
In reality, there is a great philosophical question to be had yes, but in the context of the spirit of the law, no there isn't.
The Militia is held under the state. That being said, the State should have access to all arms currently held under the Federal Government for use by the Militia. Conceptually this would have been ordnance, artillery, and vehicles. Most small arms, including automatic weapons, would be owned legally within any persons home.
Now, what I find funny is that the ideal which birthed this legal right isn't far fetched and all you need to do is to turn on your tv for 5 mins and watch any 24hour news network for a bright and shining example as to why this right has been extremely demonized over the last 100 years.
You missed the part earlier in the thread where we talked about guerilla warfare and resistances.
The "air force and tanks" vs "guns" has been done, in the 20th century.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
1) An Air Force is notoriously bad against scattered infantry. Especially if the infantry is under cover. So the Air Force would be useless against guerrillas in the woods harassing a patrol with long range shots.
2) The commercially available bolt action .50BMG Barrett rifle (and yes, people do use .50BMG rifles to hunt large game, and there is a Fifty Cal Shooters Association that does competitions on vacant air strips) can disable a tank with one shot. This is achieved by hitting it at any of the various "soft points" that are between the turret and main body of the tank. While a rather small point on a tank as a whole, they are large enough for a skilled marksman to hit.
I think you should watch Red Dawn. Yes, it is a movie and we know movies aren't perfect (except for movies like Gasland and SiCKO...you know, the pro-left wing propaganda films - those are 100% accurate!). But it shows what a guerrilla campaign could be like against a foreign invader (or an oppressive government).
Seriously, your go to argument is Red Dawn?
Until you provide me something substantial I'm just going to continue laughing at you. Also, your snide remarks about all things left wing do not an argument make. They do however look really really stupid. Just like you CONSTANTLY ***** about people stereotyping one person as the entirety of the right wing (Think: Bush) and you do the exact same thing to Timothy Mimeslayer. Are you at least cognizant of your hypocrisy?
Re: Guerilla warfare
They have RPGs, bombs, and fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting America should have those things in civilian hands as well?
1) IED's are what the insurgencies in Iraq/Afghanistan have famously used, to good effect. You don't need proper bombs, if you have fertilizer, gunpowder and such.
2) We've already discussed in this thread, that certain rifles that are available to civilians can be converted to full-auto. Its illegal now, but in the context of a resistance, no one will care.
3) RPG's are the sort of thing which can be acquired from ambushed occupiers, or supplied by sympathetic nations providing weapons.
The point being, a primarily civilian resistance is not nearly as absurd as you make it out to be.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique