[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GTASAddict @ Monday, May 13 2013, 16:37)

Mental health and/or drug evaluations for gun owners, would this violate our second amendment rights?

Logically speaking, and based on current interpretation, probably not.

[gtamann123]

QUOTE

An airsoft gun resembles a real gun and it discharges pellets at high velocity. Besides being dangerous, it can lead to serious consequences, if fallen on wrong hands. Hence, its possession by an individual is prohibited in Singapore.

when I was a kid we would go down to the park and shoot at each other with our airsoft guns for hours. It was crazy fun for hours on end. And guess what? Nobody died. Shocker I know right.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (gtamann123 @ Monday, May 13 2013, 16:29)

When I was a kid we would go down to the park and shoot at each other with our airsoft guns for hours. It was crazy fun for hours on end. And guess what? Nobody died. Shocker I know right.

Only the police should have airsoft guns.

In other news, I bought some high capacity assault gripozines for my 1911, which should arrive in a week or two. Will post pics when I get them.

[RadioIsotope]

Speaking of high capacity magazines, the first arrest due to the NY SAFE Act has been recorded today.

http://www.news10.com/story/22236238/troop...-in-new-lebanon

[fatal1ty619]

QUOTE (RadioIsotope @ Monday, May 13 2013, 20:08)

Speaking of high capacity magazines, the first arrest due to the NY SAFE Act has been recorded today. http://www.news10.com/story/22236238/troop...-in-new-lebanon

Jesus. What difference does it f*cking make? That law is as redundant as any I've ever heard of. The limit before was 10. Why take another 3 away? What is the point? Can someone give me a logical reason as to why 10 rounds would be too much? The law is another stab at trying to cut down crime, but it won't serve it's purpose. It is pointless. What criminal is going to rob a liquor store, and right before he runs in to hold up the cashier, he thinks,

"Wait, this gun holds 10 rounds! I can't have that many bullets! It's against the law!!"

*Criminal proceeds to toss 3 bullets on the ground as he runs in to rob the place*

The only thing that laws such as these end up doing is hurting the law abiding citizens. The responsible gun owner, who only has 7 rounds in his pistol, is immediately put at a disadvantage against the criminal who is around the corner holding a fully loaded Glock. The criminal doesn't give a sh*t, which means the law put in place is effectively useless.


EDIT: SAFE Act! lol What a load of horsesh*t.

This post has been edited by fatal1ty619 on Monday, May 13 2013, 21:00

[MinnieMan121249]

If anything criminals would be happy to know that people are allowed to have less ammo. America needs to sort it's sh*t out. Waaaaaay too many dumb people live there not to see the big picture behind gun control.

[sivispacem]

Whilst I agree that arbitrary magazine size limits are utterly stupid and completely pointless, your argument doesn't really hold water. I don't think there's any correlation between large magazine capacity and statistical likelihood of stopping an attacker, given that almost all incidents involving an armed criminal targeting members of the public involve a single armed criminal, and if you fire seven times at another aggressive armed individual without successfully hitting or otherwise dissuading them the fact you've got to reload is the least of your worries, as they've probably already killed or seriously wounded you. Similarly, I question whether a criminal has any "advantage" over a citizen regardless of whether they have a legal seven round magazine, an illegal factory 17 round one, or an equally as illegal extended 33-round one in their Glock. Of course, the advantage or lack thereof of a particular magazine size over another is largely a moot point given that there is absolutely no logical reason to limit magazine capacity- especially not with a limit as low as 7 rounds when the vast majority of factory double-stack-magazine handguns in popular calibres hold between 12 and 20 rounds. I just don't think that the argument that the law disadvantages the legal firearm owner and benefits the criminal actually has any basis behind it.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (fatal1ty619 @ Monday, May 13 2013, 20:57)

Why take another 3 away? What is the point? Can someone give me a logical reason as to why 10 rounds would be too much?

Their goal is to go from 30, to 10, to 7, to 6 (revolvers), to 1 (muskets). A lot of these people would like to make guns illegal, or so hard to get that no one bothers. Since that isn't politically feasible directly, they just keep demanding incremental "compromise" until you are left with as little as possible.

Link

[fatal1ty619]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 13 2013, 21:10)

Whilst I agree that arbitrary magazine size limits are utterly stupid and completely pointless, your argument doesn't really hold water. I don't think there's any correlation between large magazine capacity and statistical likelihood of stopping an attacker, given that almost all incidents involving an armed criminal targeting members of the public involve a single armed criminal, and if you fire seven times at another aggressive armed individual without successfully hitting or otherwise dissuading them the fact you've got to reload is the least of your worries, as they've probably already killed or seriously wounded you. Similarly, I question whether a criminal has any "advantage" over a citizen regardless of whether they have a legal seven round magazine, an illegal factory 17 round one, or an equally as illegal extended 33-round one in their Glock. Of course, the advantage or lack thereof of a particular magazine size over another is largely a moot point given that there is absolutely no logical reason to limit magazine capacity- especially not with a limit as low as 7 rounds when the vast majority of factory double-stack-magazine handguns in popular calibres hold between 12 and 20 rounds. I just don't think that the argument that the law disadvantages the legal firearm owner and benefits the criminal actually has any basis behind it.

Well, that is just the thing with these laws. They absolutely are arbitrary. There is no basis for taking away from the populace when it does no good for them. Yes, it may not give them much more disadvantage in the hypothetical run-in with a locked-and-loaded criminal, it doesn't do anything to stop the criminal from possessing the same illegal magazine. The basis for the law is to make the streets safer, which in fact, it does not. Therefore, the law is redundant, and has no logical reason for existing.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, May 13 2013, 22:16)

A lot of these people would like to make guns illegal, or so hard to get that no one bothers.

I'm not a septic and therefore can't really judge the views of lower-level politicians, but I find it quite surprising that there's any real appetite for complete prohibition of firearms in the US given that there's almost no appetite for it anywhere else in the West, where firearm ownership isn't a legally enshrined right and firearm culture of the US kind doesn't exist.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 13 2013, 21:34)

I'm not a septic and therefore can't really judge the views of lower-level politicians, but I find it quite surprising that there's any real appetite for complete prohibition of firearms in the US

They usually aren't big on banning hunting rifles/shotguns, but there is a big push to ban semi-auto rifles and to a lesser degree semi-auto handguns in many leftist circles. They usually aren't vocal about this as it only rallies votes for Republicans though.

Edit:
This billboard was put up by some pro-2nd amendment group. Extremely controversial, but I like it.



This post has been edited by Chunkyman on Monday, May 13 2013, 21:52

[gtamann123]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, May 13 2013, 21:48)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 13 2013, 21:34) I'm not a septic and therefore can't really judge the views of lower-level politicians, but I find it quite surprising that there's any real appetite for complete prohibition of firearms in the US They usually aren't big on banning hunting rifles/shotguns, but there is a big push to ban semi-auto rifles and to a lesser degree semi-auto handguns in many leftist circles. They usually aren't vocal about this as it only rallies votes for Republicans though. Edit: This billboard was put up by some pro-2nd amendment group. Extremely controversial, but I like it.

Haha love it!! I saw a shirt similar to this once.

[GTAforthe21thcentury]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:43)

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 00:08) Gun control means the complete banning of All guns. It starts with a small limitation and grows by evermore restrictions until the final objective is reached. "No more civilian weapons." Which has never, ever happened in the history of firearm regulation. I challenged you to demonstrate, you failed to, ergo your argument is invalid. QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 01:51) A step by step plan. From a f*cking blog. Christ, you really need to learn what constitutes a decent source of information. QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 02:36) I don't understand the 'toilets' & 'poo' reference. I read it as implying your argument was full of sh*t, but that's just me.

Your such a sh*t ass.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GTAforthe21thcentury @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 01:17)

Your such a sh*t ass.

What an engrossing and worthwhile contribution. Why don't you crawl back under your rock until you can find the intelligence to contribute something worth reading?

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted: Monday, May 13 2013, 2110)

[I]f you fire seven times at another aggressive armed individual without successfully hitting or otherwise dissuading them the fact you've got to reload is the least of your worries[.]

When the cops asked to carry semi-auto pistols, the Mayor and Commissioners said the same thing when the police had five and six shot revolvers back in the seventies. You do realize that the venerable Colt 1911 has an Eight shot magazine, as do most pistols?

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Sunday, Apr 21, 2013, 2043)

A registry for firearms in and of itself no way impedes on the individual's right to possess them.

That confiscation of All Firearms hasn’t happened is no promise that it won’t happen. A registry would certainly make it easier for the collection should a tyrant seize power. There is already a rumor that gun magazine subscription lists and other licensing have allowed the Government (F.B.I. H.L.S., & A.T.F.) to compile ‘a list of possible subversives’ over the years since Kennedy was shot. Official lists are ‘illegal’ but that didn’t stop Mister Hoover in the past. There is no reason to believe it will stop his successors, especially, now.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 0643)

From, a <> blog. Christ, you really need to learn what constitutes a decent source of information.

To that I reply you need to learn that the ordinary person’s thoughts/opinions are as valid as any Government Think Tank supplied ‘truth’. It is what the people believe that has the power, not a professor’s lecture or paper. When you start demeaning the expressions of the people you run a serious risk of meeting a lamp post in a nasty way.
People will believe what they are told only to a point. When they start to think for themselves it what they believe that matters. That you ‘require’ everything said on these forums to be Approved or have been stated as *fact* by some Authority of your choosing is unrealistic. Not everyone will join in your lock-step logic.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Tuesday, May 14 2013, 0657)

Why don't you crawl back under your rock until you can find the intelligence to contribute something worth reading?

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Saturday, May 11 2013, 1618)

You must be trolling. No human could be that stupid.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Saturday, May 11 2013, 1137)

Your clearly some kind of knuckledragging simpleton

The members of this (or any) forum have a right to be heard without being threatened, demeaned or abused.
We can be thankful that your attempts to expand your control of the forums has little success.

[The Scottish Guy]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 14:36)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Tuesday, May 14 2013, 0657) Why don't you crawl back under your rock until you can find the intelligence to contribute something worth reading? QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Saturday, May 11 2013, 1618) You must be trolling. No human could be that stupid. QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted, Saturday, May 11 2013, 1137) Your clearly some kind of knuckledragging simpleton The members of this (or any) forum have a right to be heard without being threatened, demeaned or abused. We can be thankful that your attempts to expand your control of the forums has little success.

The funny thing is, he tried to give me a little lecture in this thread about joining discussions to "lambast others". Ironic, given that he himself would give half the kids in the V section a run for their money on rudeness.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 15:36)

QUOTE (sivispacem @  Posted: Monday, May 13 2013, 2110) [i]f you fire seven times at another aggressive armed individual without successfully hitting or otherwise dissuading them the fact you've got to reload is the least of your worries[.] When the cops asked to carry semi-auto pistols, the Mayor and Commissioners said the same thing when the police had five and six shot revolvers back in the seventies. You do realize that the venerable Colt 1911 has an Eight shot magazine, as do most pistols?

Actually, it doesn't. The original M1911 has a 7-round magazine, for an overall capacity of 8 rounds. Modern versions like the Kimber Warrior have 8+1 magazines AFAIK. Also, as usual, you've failed to actually take into account anything I've said on the issue. Do I really need to quote myself for posterity?

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 15:36)

QUOTE (sivispacem @  Posted, Sunday, Apr 21, 2013, 2043) A registry for firearms in and of itself no way impedes on the individual's right to possess them. That confiscation of All Firearms hasn’t happened is no promise that it won’t happen. A registry would certainly make it easier for the collection should a tyrant seize power. There is already a rumor...

The available evidence suggests that there is no link between registration and outlawing. It's pure hyperbole to suggest otherwise. Also, rumours are just that.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 15:36)

QUOTE (sivispacem @  Posted, Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 0643) From, a <> blog. Christ, you really need to learn what constitutes a decent source of information. To that I reply you need to learn that the ordinary person’s thoughts/opinions are as valid as any Government Think Tank supplied ‘truth’.

Not when the argument you are attempting to make is one of empiricism. The opinions of one person that registration is tantamount to outlawing does not really hold any weight in a discussion, especially when you've been completely unable to justify the logic behind that theory with hard evidence of it occurring. You presented the comments in that blog as if it were a factual guide as to how the government were going to outlaw firearms, in support of your argument that they were. That's not an issue of the validity of opinions or otherwise, that's dressing up opinions and pretending they're facts.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 15:36)

That you ‘require’ everything said on these forums to be Approved or have been stated as *fact* by some Authority of your choosing is unrealistic.

I can't really be held responsible for the inability of other posters to properly justify their arguments. There are plenty of examples of people in this thread making perfectly rational, reasonable and well-supported points that partially or completely contradict my personal views. I don't hear them complaining that I have set some kind of arbitrary standard for what is considered a supported argument, do you?

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, May 14 2013, 15:36)

The members of this (or any) forum have a right to be heard without being threatened, demeaned or abused.

I hardly think any of those quotes constitute a threat. Demeaning? Perhaps subjectively, but given the context of those comments I think my responses were justified. I also don't see anyone other than you complaining. Abusive? Again, subjective. I've not had anyone complain saying they've felt "abused" by my responses, and the vast majority of people on these forums, even those I disagree with, don't seem to feel that way, so I can only assume that this is far more related to the fact you've got a sizeable chip on your shoulder about me due to an amount of time spent pointing out the lack of sense in some of your arguments that's got you so riled up.

In fact, let's look at the calibre of posting to which I was responding:

QUOTE (Killerdude8- on Feminism)

f*ck them, I'd beat the sh*t out of a Femminist if she tries to spout her dogsh*t at me. How's that for equal rights?

Point rather proven.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, May 14 2013, 18:24

[Chunkyman]

Got a Fobus paddle holster and some high capacity assault gripozines in the mail today.

[fatal1ty619]

How much did that 1911 put you back? $1000-1100?

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (fatal1ty619 @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 15:12)

How much did that 1911 put you back? $1000-1100?

Around $650 for the gun, and another $60 for the grips + holster. A gun shop with wholesale prices and Amazon saved me a ton of money.

When I save up enough money, I think my next gun will be an AR-15.