Gun control debate (merged)

[luthervol]

You’re getting to woodsman level of nonsense these days

It actually makes perfect sense.

 

[Vol8188]

It actually makes perfect sense.

We have to reduce the firing rate of guns because the guns that fire the fastest are never used in mass murder?

Yeah, sound logic

 

[kiddiedoc]

The "popular" AR-15 can NOT fire 800-1200 RPM .

Then you give some BS about "a little excessive" and "d***s."

I'm through with your moronic existence in this thread

 

[hog88]

I've never claimed to have any knowledge about guns; quite the opposite, I've proudly stated multiple times I have almost no knowledge about guns.

We've proven over and over again in this thread that knowledge and wisdom have almost no correlation. Some of you guys make me think it may even be a negative correlation.

You have neither wisdom or knowledge.

 

[C-south]

That’s not quite accurate; the brace typically being discussed are not bump stocks, but simply allow the weapon to be shoulder fired instead of completely supported by the hand, or a strap on the wrist or forearm. The ATF argues this makes them a short barreled rifle, and no longer a handgun.

Yes I know. I was referring to comments the idiotic dims were making. Of course it’s shouldered whether it was designed to be or not. The ATF said it couldn’t be shouldered, then said “well….maybe sometimes”, then said it didn’t matter. A handgun wasn’t meant to be shot sideways either but that’s ok.

 

[C-south]

No one ever said that. I was talking about fully automatic. But it's not like you guys don't get it wrong constantly.

You were completely ignorant to what a semiautomatic vs an automatic was and attempted to have an argument.

 

[85SugarVol]

It’s just a game for him. He enjoys trolling in the PF.

I almost went down the “infringement is perfectly fine” rabbit hole earlier.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

Period

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

 

[85SugarVol]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

Without question they would answer with a thunderous NO.

If they could have foreseen how misunderstood and misrepresented the 2nd would be - I believe they would have been much more explicit.

 

[85SugarVol]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

Apply this line of thought to Freedom of the Press.

 

[hog88]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

Yes, they were brilliant men and knew technology would improve. What they probably didn’t take into account is how people would regress.

And BTW if you don’t like the 2A start a movement to amend it otherwise STFU.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

The bigger question is do you think our FF ever thought our representative government would become what it is today?

 

[C-south]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

It doesn’t f****** matter. Our forefathers wanted us to be armed to fight a tyrannical government if need be. The right to bear arms was also meant to keep all representatives in check. People have made concessions but the fact remains whatever the government has should essentially be available to all law abiding citizens. Hunting and self defense was 2nd tier.

 

[85SugarVol]

The bigger question is do you think our FF ever thought our representative government would become what it is today?

They would be aghast.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

It doesn’t f****** matter. Our forefathers wanted us to be armed to fight a tyrannical government if need be. The right to bear arms was also meant to keep all representatives in check. People have made concessions but the fact remains whatever the government has should essentially be available to all law abiding citizens. Hunting and self defense was 2nd tier.

Do you think they thought it would be what it is today? If the government wanted you dead do you honestly think your little AR is going to save you?

 

[C-south]

Do you think they thought it would be what it is today? If the government wanted you dead do you honestly think your little AR is going to save you?

No I don’t think they would approve of blm burning down communities disguised as “peaceful protest”.

 

[85SugarVol]

Do you think they thought it would be what it is today?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic. Have you read Jefferson’s thoughts on Freedom?

 

[luthervol]

We have to reduce the firing rate of guns because the guns that fire the fastest are never used in mass murder?

Yeah, sound logic

You seem to miss the point quite frequently. Guns that fire the fastest have not been used because they are not readily available. The guns that have been used are the guns with the fastest legal fire rate that are easily evailable.

Are you starting to get a glimmer?

 

[luthervol]

You have neither wisdom or knowledge.

It exists in the third dimension making it imperceptible to you.

 

[luthervol]

You were completely ignorant to what a semiautomatic vs an automatic was and attempted to have an argument.

You're once again proving your cluelessness.

 

[C-south]

You're once again proving your cluelessness.

Ok 800-1200 rpm.

 

[NCFisher]

Do you think they thought it would be what it is today? If the government wanted you dead do you honestly think your little AR is going to save you?

Do you history? It has been working for every AK toting, SE Asian living on a handful of rice/wearing sandals from old tires, or scarf/burlap-wearing desert primitive force we've encountered since WWII. It works because the U.S. - the West - is no longer willing to wage total war by destroying the civilian populations, which turns sheer numbers of combatants in favor of your enemy. Modern warfare specifically avoids civilian casualty due to international rules of engagement and to avoid a broader resistance by turning every citizen into a jihadi or Viet Cong.

@luthervol made a similar comment earlier re: U.S. military having planes, nukes, auto weapons; it's missing the point. Nukes aren't even on the table for the indiscriminate devastation they cause. You start indiscriminately wiping out large swathes of American cities, and the federal loyalist who just saw the old neighborhood leveled turns rebel. Are you going to kill your brother, father, or best friend? And that's what it would take to win a war when you've perhaps 300K available enlisted against tens of millions of revolutionaries.

But it gets better; the defections from the military would likely be massive, same for civilian police. And let's not forget the ex-military expertise among the population who see their duty as constitution first, federal tyrants second. And how do you hold ground you take against such numbers? The Civil War would look like a Sunday outing.

It's how Russia went head-head with vastly superior German forces. Having far more armed bodies who are willing to fight is simply a winning formula. That's the calculation designed into the 2A by guys who lived war and used it to go against the British, the equivalent of todays U.S. military. Stop simplistically prattling about things you don't understand and never will bother to.

 

[luthervol]

Do you history? It has been working for every AK toting, SE Asian living on a handful of rice/wearing sandals from old tires, or scarf/burlap-wearing desert primitive force we've encountered since WWII. It works because the U.S. - the West - is no longer willing to wage total war by destroying the civilian populations, which turns sheer numbers of combatants in favor of your enemy. Modern warfare specifically avoids civilian casualty due to international rules of engagement and to avoid a broader resistance by turning every citizen into a jihadi or Viet Cong.

@luthervol made a similar comment earlier re: U.S. military having planes, nukes, auto weapons; it's missing the point. Nukes aren't even on the table for the indiscriminate devastation they cause. You start indiscriminately wiping out large swathes of American cities, and the federal loyalist who just saw the old neighborhood leveled turns rebel. Are you going to kill your brother, father, or best friend? And that's what it would take to win a war when you've perhaps 300K available enlisted against tens of millions of revolutionaries.

But it gets better; the defections from the military would likely be massive, same for civilian police. And let's not forget the ex-military expertise among the population who see their duty as constitution first, federal tyrants second. And how do you hold ground you take against such numbers? The Civil War would look like a Sunday outing.

It's how Russia went head-head with vastly superior German forces. Having far more armed bodies who are willing to fight is simply a winning formula. That's the calculation designed into the 2A by guys who lived war and used it to go against the British, the equivalent of todays U.S. military. Stop simplistically prattling about things you don't understand and never will bother to.

So North Vietnamese couldn't afford food or clothing but they all maintained an arsenal?
Do you history?
Because what it really proves is that you do not need a heavily armed populace. You only need to be able to arm a populace quickly if/when the situation arises.

And lol on your Russian history. When Germany invaded Russia, Russia had 5.5 million in it's standing army. They were not average citizens who brought their own weapons, they were average citizens enlisted during a crisis and armed by the government.

 

[VOLS INC.]

So North Vietnamese couldn't afford food or clothing but they all maintained an arsenal?
Do you history?
Because what it really proves is that you do not need a heavily armed populace. You only need to be able to arm a populace quickly if/when the situation arises.

And without proper training, how am I gonna know how to handle one of those ARs that fire 1200 rounds a minute?

Best give me one now so I can practice.

 

[Orangeburst]

Release the Manifesto. We gotta know all the facts for any gun control.