Four more years!

Donnachaidh wrote:A track without weapons is a mine destroyer without a flail.

A standard AR15 only includes 1 item from the list of requirements, a pistol grip. Everything else is a modification.

So what about the 30 plus round magzines then? thats not a modification, thats a required part of the gun in that you need a magazine to fire. it has a inbuilt pistol grip, as a standard on some variants. It is semi auto. it has detachable magazines. the last two are standard on every AR15, autoatically making it an assault weapon as it only requires two from the list to be an assault weapon according to the wiki page.


and its still a tank, just a half built one, as the last parts that are supposed to be added havent been yet. its like being sold a house missing windows. still fully functional, but designed to work best with the last parts added, and there are people who will add that last part.

The leader of Syria would disagree. So would the former leader of Libya. For current examples.

<sarcasm> Oh I know they didn't do it themselves they had outside help. Really think the colonies cut Cornwallis off from the sea with those hunting rifles.

Oh those must be them local things you are talking about.

How is it any different now than the time when the tercio reigned supreme? Its not. Remember when the British wouldn't let the Irish have pikes.

All private arms have to do is make it more expensive in that cost benefit analysis when weighing any new actions.<end sarcasm>

While I think Poker was using too much hyperbole, his point about private arms is entirely valid. As a little country in southeast Asia proved. Or any of several other locations in time and place.

Read the Maple Syrup War sometime for a more modern example. If you have to destroy the village to save it then you lost before you started. Provided of course others are willing to pay the same price. Seems like that has happened a lot in history, not the majority, but a lot.

Have Fun,
T2M

PS My apologies for the sarcastic nature of this post. But if ten years isn't enough to beat what could be called a stone aged people with hand portable weapons then why do people keep insisting that the "whatever" will win.

Eyal wrote:...snip...

And there are valid reasons for private owenership of guns, let's be blunt - given modern weaponry and organization, privately-held small arms are going to be of very limited utility if it comes to opposing the government beyond anything but the most local scale, as the Branch Davidians could attest to (and in that case, the government was actually trying not to kill them, else they could have flattened the compund and gone on their merry way).

"Wah har in the mountains we call it a tad of fact strechin not a twenty dollar word like hyperbole."

Any tool can be misused in an illegal way to murder. The question is why some people go off the deep end and kill innocents while committing suicide.

OK libs would you have felt any better if the nut in Sandyhook had slit their throats with knife, beat their brains out with a baseball bat, or had driven a stolen fuel truck into the building killing even more with said giant Molotov Cocktail?

Hey why not make it illegal to give these nut jobs their infamy only allowing descriptions of such nutcases as a 'a nut case' but not their names.

Libs, "You can't do that it would violate the press' first amendment rights."

Conservs, "Then why are you advocating restrictions of our second amendment rights?"

Libs, "But that's different."

Mange, <Really? How? Sometimes I just can't understand two-legs!>

Chief, "Mange, get back to Honorverse Humor before you get your fur singed."

thinkstoomuch wrote:
[Snip]

While I think Poker was using too much hyperbole, his point about private arms is entirely valid. As a little country in southeast Asia proved. Or any of several other locations in time and place.

Read the Maple Syrup War sometime for a more modern example. If you have to destroy the village to save it then you lost before you started. Provided of course others are willing to pay the same price. Seems like that has happened a lot in history, not the majority, but a lot.

Have Fun,
T2M

PS My apologies for the sarcastic nature of this post. But if ten years isn't enough to beat what could be called a stone aged people with hand portable weapons then why do people keep insisting that the "whatever" will win.

Spacekiwi wrote:So what about the 30 plus round magzines then? thats not a modification, thats a required part of the gun in that you need a magazine to fire. it has a inbuilt pistol grip, as a standard on some variants. It is semi auto. it has detachable magazines. the last two are standard on every AR15, autoatically making it an assault weapon as it only requires two from the list to be an assault weapon according to the wiki page.


and its still a tank, just a half built one, as the last parts that are supposed to be added havent been yet. its like being sold a house missing windows. still fully functional, but designed to work best with the last parts added, and there are people who will add that last part.

'30 plus round magazines'? A 'required part of the gun'? Hyperbole much? You're still in SAWOOIAGSWBBI mode. (scary assault weapon of OMG it's a gun so we'd better ban it) I can drive down to my weekend gun range and buy an assault weapon right now. (Okay, maybe not right *now* because they've been sold out since the day after Sandy Hook, but you get the idea.) I could get a 10 round magazine with it, since anything bigger is already illegal here. As I said before, I could then buy a 20 or 30 round metal box of ammunition from a private party, free spring included. I wouldn't want to buy one of those fancy 50 or 100 round magazines (Your 30+ types) because they tend to jam like crazy. Your magazine ban is obviously not very effective.

You know what else could be a SAWOOIAGSWBBI with just the slightest creative tweaking of the definition? A regular pistol. The in-grip magazine certainly detaches. By definition it has a pistol grip. It's almost certainly semi-automatic. It's a SAWOOIAGSWBBI!

Do you begin to see why the term 'assault weapon' is a bad one? There is no technical, accepted, functional definition. It depends entirely on the current law, and as we're seeing right now, that's easy enough to change. You've shown us that's it's very confusing too, since you can't tell the difference between a military-type gun like the M-16 and a SAWOOIAGSWBBI like the AR-15 even after it's been explained to you by multiple people. That's really bad, since one of them is already banned while the other looks very, very similar but functions differently.

There are better ways to deal with this issue than picking a scary-looking gun and banning it. Your own research has pointed towards some of them. Shall we discuss that, or shall we flail about in mindless, uneducated panic a little while longer?

Pokermind, careful about those 'libs' and 'Obama's jackbooted thugs' remarks. You might find that some of your staunchest allies on this issue are actually earthy-crunchy granola eating types, along with the ACLU. For all the chest thumping they've done, the NRA wouldn't touch the District of Columbia gun ban when Heller asked them for legal assistance. In their absence, one of the biggest 2nd Amendment legal decisions of the last century was made in SCOTUS.

A 30 round magazine isn't not required. A magazine is required. You can get 5, 10, 20, 30, and larger magazines VERY easily.

Spacekiwi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:A track without weapons is a mine destroyer without a flail.

A standard AR15 only includes 1 item from the list of requirements, a pistol grip. Everything else is a modification.

So what about the 30 plus round magzines then? thats not a modification, thats a required part of the gun in that you need a magazine to fire. it has a inbuilt pistol grip, as a standard on some variants. It is semi auto. it has detachable magazines. the last two are standard on every AR15, autoatically making it an assault weapon as it only requires two from the list to be an assault weapon according to the wiki page.


and its still a tank, just a half built one, as the last parts that are supposed to be added havent been yet. its like being sold a house missing windows. still fully functional, but designed to work best with the last parts added, and there are people who will add that last part.

They're using heavy weapons and IEDs, not rifles.

For that matter, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had widespread private ownership of small arms; it didn't help them much until an outside force smashed his regime.

The US Constitution was written in a time where the weapons available to private individuals were largely comparable to those held by armies. That hasn't been the case for a while now.

And I might point out that coming down on someone like a pile of rectangular building things might not be cost-effective in itself, a dictatorship would probably see it as worthwile to make an example.

thinkstoomuch wrote:The leader of Syria would disagree. So would the former leader of Libya. For current examples.

..
How is it any different now than the time when the tercio reigned supreme? Its not. Remember when the British wouldn't let the Irish have pikes.

All private arms have to do is make it more expensive in that cost benefit analysis when weighing any new actions.<end sarcasm>

While I think Poker was using too much hyperbole, his point about private arms is entirely valid. As a little country in southeast Asia proved. Or any of several other locations in time and place.

Read the Maple Syrup War sometime for a more modern example. If you have to destroy the village to save it then you lost before you started. Provided of course others are willing to pay the same price. Seems like that has happened a lot in history, not the majority, but a lot.

Have Fun,
T2M

<sarcasm> Oh I know they didn't do it themselves they had outside help. Really think the colonies cut Cornwallis off from the sea with those hunting rifles.

Oh those must be them local things you are talking about.

Uh.. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here?

PS My apologies for the sarcastic nature of this post. But if ten years isn't enough to beat what could be called a stone aged people with hand portable weapons then why do people keep insisting that the "whatever" will win.

Neither tha Afghans nor the Iraqis have actually managed to militarily defeat the US. There's a different between fighting a foreign occupation which isn't actually intended to be long-term and a dictatorship in its own country.

pokermind wrote:OK libs would you have felt any better if the nut in Sandyhook had slit their throats with knife, beat their brains out with a baseball bat, or had driven a stolen fuel truck into the building killing even more with said giant Molotov Cocktail?

Well, probably so except for the last, given that he'd probably have managed to kill a lot fewer people that way (and I'm not sure how feasible the last would be, especially without knowing the building's layout)

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS My apologies for the sarcastic nature of this post. But if ten years isn't enough to beat what could be called a stone aged people with hand portable weapons then why do people keep insisting that the "whatever" will win.

Eyal wrote:...snip...

And there are valid reasons for private owenership of guns, let's be blunt - given modern weaponry and organization, privately-held small arms are going to be of very limited utility if it comes to opposing the government beyond anything but the most local scale, as the Branch Davidians could attest to (and in that case, the government was actually trying not to kill them, else they could have flattened the compund and gone on their merry way).

The western world was never really going to win the war on terror after about the first year. this is due to the people on the other end figuring out our soldiers and leaders mentality. we were fighting for what we thought was right, they are fighting for what they 'know' is the right thing to do. we weren't on home soil, they are. there is a limited amount of fresh blood on our side, but they just need to provoke us in the right way once over there to cause an incident, and they have a whole lot of fresh new soldiers to the cause. and they are prepared to go as far as it is needed for their side to win. we have rules and laws and regulations keeping us in line, which just gives them greater freedom of fighting.

its not just the guns that allows them to keep fighting, the guns are just a bit more of a boost to their fighting.

All the will in the world won't help you without the right weapons. Just ask the Mujahideen (before the US started supplying them with arms) after the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

Spacekiwi wrote:The western world was never really going to win the war on terror after about the first year. this is due to the people on the other end figuring out our soldiers and leaders mentality. we were fighting for what we thought was right, they are fighting for what they 'know' is the right thing to do. we weren't on home soil, they are. there is a limited amount of fresh blood on our side, but they just need to provoke us in the right way once over there to cause an incident, and they have a whole lot of fresh new soldiers to the cause. and they are prepared to go as far as it is needed for their side to win. we have rules and laws and regulations keeping us in line, which just gives them greater freedom of fighting.

its not just the guns that allows them to keep fighting, the guns are just a bit more of a boost to their fighting.