Odd Sheeple Reaction

Some crime and violence are an acceptable cost of living in a free society.
The US has the second amendment not to promote hunting or fight crime but to protect it's self from control by a dictatorship. I think of it like a immune system for tyranny.

At the distances most civilian gun battles are fought at a gun has very few advantages over a knife. The only signifigant one is it takes less strength and training than a knife.
 
wadeblade said:
Yes, it could happen here. And there are horror stories all over this forum about what's happening in England and Australia.
Click to expand...

hmm im not sure if you took what i said the way i meant it (please correct me if i am wrong) i meant the gun restrictions cant happen here.

i know there are still bad things and soem people that get illegal guns in europe/australia/ other places with laws to outlaw guns but there are a lot less gun related crimes in those places... at least reported
-matt
 
SRMatt, I understood what you meant. I think a lot of the differences in our thinking are mainly due to age difference.

I look back and remember we could keep our firearms in our cars at school, so we could head straight for the woods after classes. I was allowed to bring my rifle into shop class to work on it. Most of us boys had pocketknives, and everyone scrambled to get theirs out first when someone happened to need one. There was a lot more tolerance and very little fear that I can remember. And you know what? Noone got hurt.

I apologize for the old man rant, but I have seen so much freedom erode in the last 20 years. I am sorry that you were not able to experience some of the freedoms that those my age have known. :(

Thanks,
Dave
 
SR_matt said:
hmm im not sure if you took what i said the way i meant it (please correct me if i am wrong) i meant the gun restrictions cant happen here.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it can. There is a bill, H.R. 1022, in committee right now to effectively ban all semi-auto rifles and shotguns. You get to keep what you have, but you can't ever buy or sell such firearms anymore.

We enjoy so many freedoms in the United States that those of us of a younger age may not always realize how many freedoms have already been lost, and we need to be watchful so that we do not become complacent. We need to be vigilant so that those that we still have are not legislated out of existence.
 
bSquirrel said:
People are poking holes at specific examples. I dont have any single thing I am opposed to, it is merely the trends that i would try to bring attention to. I don't specifically object to hollow points or extended clips, but on the aggregate, all these little extras that make guns slightly more lethal add up to a culture where the standard for protection becomes something that, if used, is almost impossible to use with less than lethal results. If something is actually used for hunting, then fine. Personally, I think you can hunt with less powerful munitions than are commonly used, but if you prefer high power rifles with hollow points and whatever, that's fine. The problem is that you can hunt with lesser weapons, but for tactical (re: illegal) purposes, these cutting edge weapons are necessary.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a less lethal bullet. The first thing you are taught at a hunter safety course(you obviously need one) is that all firearms are equally lethal and should be treated equally in regards to safety. There is no such thing as being a little dead. High powered (centerfire) rifles are used more than anything for hunting. In most states it is illegal to use rimfire(22,22mag,25) for large game hunting as they will injure animals causing slow death and suffering as opposed to an immediate kill. Cutting edge weapons? A hunting rifle is a cutting edge weapon? Tactical equals illegal? You know absolutely nothing about hunting or anything associated with it. You are really showing your ignorance by commenting about something you have no knowledge of. Take a hunter safety course. Go hunting, or fishing. Stop spouting drivel until you can talk from actual experience and not total conjecture.
 
wadeblade, i understand what you are getting at, and for those reasons i wish i was born earlier but a lot of the cool technology i enjoy now i alos enjoy much so that canceles out the wish. i think one of the problems is that between many many factors, people have just become less responsible and smart so there were more problems and the only easy option was to ban it all.

cosine, i see what you are getting at, i see both sides of the argument, the restrictions i was more so refering to are the ones like in europe that out law most if not all weapons. personaly i dont think that bill will pass but again i see both sides of it (while the side to ban them might be using the wrong reasons they still have found at least some of the reasons from what stupid people have done)

soleil, i see your argument, i think what bsquirel was getting at might have been some of the large calibers some people use (i do not hunt so i do not know much about the subject of calibers, except that you must you a .227 or larger IIRC to hunt deer). the tatical i think he was also getting at is warefare type situations (i.e. human -human, not the human-animal situations).

also the idea of a less lethal round, yes any bullet can kill you but many of the more common weapons (at least used in warfare) end up more so harming than killing (the better medical care also adds to this statistic). IIRC when some of the more modern weapons were being developed years ago, one of the ideas to the smaller rounds (not the main one) was that the smaller rounds could end up harming more than killing and there fore you dissable 2 soilders becasue you now need 1 to move the wounded and the wounded.

am i saying modern weapons are less lethal? no, but they have sometimes ended up that way as a round about effect.

-matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top