General Politics Thread

[DayWalker]

You are confused my friend. Just because you have gun rights doesn't mean they can't be restricted.

restrictions like if you or someone in your house is on crazy pills... you hand over your gun until you're off said crazy pills.

its ludicrous I know...

[MATRIX 2]

you are mistaken. An ar 15 is nothing but an M16. Trust me I know. They are both made for hunting down humans.



The two weapons you describe above are based on the Ar15 rifle design. Military styled.

You are confused my friend. Just because you have gun rights doesn't mean they can't be restricted.

No you do not.

An M16/m4 is capable of select fire. An AR-15 by default is not.

And if they were "made for hunting down humans" why do police agencies across the USA use them? Last I checked hunting down humans wasn't the role of the police.

Why does the style matter at all? Last I check people are fine with M1 garand's/carbines (the exact weapon used by the US military in the past) and Springfield M1A's (very similar to the M14 used by the military)


Last I checked the 2nd amendment stated "shall not be infringed". Now you can do background checks to deny felons/mentally unstable people (who do not have the same rights as law abiding citizens) the ability to legally purchase firearms but everything else is essentially unconstitutional.

[Sub-stance1]

restrictions like if you or someone in your house is on crazy pills... you hand over your gun until you're off said crazy pills.

its ludicrous I know...

I know.. It's so silly. They are just taking things they hear in the news and running with it. It.s so funny because the NRA is just loving it. Obama is coming for our guns. Meanwhile over 70% of gun owners agree with what is being proposed.

[Vulgotha]

M16 is the military designation for a specific configuration of the AR15 design (by Armalite). In the same way the M4 is another specific military designation of the AR15 platform (cut down to a 14in barrel).

Primary difference is, as noted, selective fire capability.


As for it "hunting humans"- I'm really indifferent to that. 2nd amendment rights were never intended for sole use in hunting and sports\recreation. Self defense was one of the primary purposes.

And I highly doubt 70% of gun owners agree with his policies. I'd prefer to have a poll from a professional, decidedly objective, source before I go around touting approval statistics as fact.

Obama's gun legislation is nonsense, like Feinstein, but his executive orders are OK as far as objectives go.

[-Kwesnoth-]

well I am not in favor of banning guns. And believe that people should be able to defend themselves. And sure hunt...

I am also in favor people who want a gun proving that they are sane, competent, and have basic training on how to use a tool...

And I believe the prospect of a domestic tyrant coming about far fetched...
And I believe that a foreign tyrant... who presumably has already whooped the military of the current world heavy weight champ... really wouldn't have trouble with cowboys and Halo enthusiasts...

Background checks, and a safety training course is not a bad idea, for gun owners. Unfortunately there is no way to root out all the evildoers from receiving guns, but hopefully, it people are trained, then they can prevent future disasters.

I agree with you all the way up to the last part, are you accusing me of being a Halo enthusiast?

[MATRIX 2]

I know.. It's so silly. They are just taking things they hear in the news and running with it. It.s so funny because the NRA is just loving it. Obama is coming for our guns. Meanwhile over 70% of gun owners agree with what is being proposed.

Keep on using that BS number. It really adds to your credibility.

[DayWalker]

Keep on using that BS number. It really adds to your credibility.

they're fixing the polls!!!! they're fixing the polls!!!!

I know cuz the results don't align with my personal feelings!!!!

[MATRIX 2]

they're fixing the polls!!!! they're fixing the polls!!!!

I know cuz the results don't align with my personal feelings!!!!

I explained to you how a single poll conducted in a questionable manner by a questionable organization should not be used a proper evidence to support a claim or set of claims.

Perhaps you were on some crazy pills when you read my response because the message didn't get through.

And seeing the current trend with firearms related purchases and increases in pro 2nd amendment group memberships I'm quite confident that the true reality does not align with those results (or any other results) of the gun control movement.

[Vulgotha]

they're fixing the polls!!!! they're fixing the polls!!!!

I know cuz the results don't align with my personal feelings!!!!

Context. The vast majority of gun owners do not approve of another AWB\Feinstein\Obama's legislation.

Perhaps a majority of them are chill with his Executive Orders, but I would qualify that as being in a wholly different direction than a "gun grab".

[Sub-stance1]

No you do not.

An M16/m4 is capable of select fire. An AR-15 by default is not.

And if they were "made for hunting down humans" why do police agencies across the USA use them? Last I checked hunting down humans wasn't the role of the police.

Why does the style matter at all? Last I check people are fine with M1 garand's/carbines (the exact weapon used by the US military in the past) and Springfield M1A's (very similar to the M14 used by the military)


Last I checked the 2nd amendment stated "shall not be infringed". Now you can do background checks to deny felons/mentally unstable people (who do not have the same rights as law abiding citizens) the ability to legally purchase firearms but everything else is essentially unconstitutional.

Matrix, you sound silly. You are talking about weapon modification like that makes a difference. If you take a Ford and put a Chevy emblem on it, it doesn't make it a Chevy. An AR15 is just a civilian version of the M-16. They only gave it that name to deprive it of it's military character.

[-Kwesnoth-]

they're fixing the polls!!!! they're fixing the polls!!!!

I know cuz the results don't align with my personal feelings!!!!

Are you sure you aren't 9 years old? Because the whole "They don't agree with me, so I'll post like a child screaming!!!! " thing is getting old fast.

[Vulgotha]

Matrix, you sound silly. You are talking about weapon modification like that makes a difference. If you take a Ford and put a Chevy emblem on it, it doesn't make it a Chevy. An AR15 is just a civilian version of the M-16. They only gave it that name to deprive it of it's military character.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but the designation AR15 came first. It is the successor of the original design, the AR10 ( 7.62 NATO chambering or w\e).

The military re-designated their configuration(s) of it.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

[MATRIX 2]

Matrix, you sound silly. You are talking about weapon modification like that makes a difference. If you take a Ford and put a Chevy emblem on it, it doesn't make it a Chevy. An AR15 is just a civilian version of the M-16. They only gave it that name to deprive it of it's military character.

Gun laws differ quite a bit (at the federal level) for select fire weapons compared to standard semi automatic weapons. So it is a significant difference.

[Sub-stance1]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but the designation AR15 came first. It is the successor of the original design, the AR10 ( 7.62 NATO chambering or w\e).

The military re-designated their configuration(s) of it.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

I know all about those weapons. They are basically the same. AR 15 was built for the military and the military changed its nomenclature. This whole thing isn't about AR15 or M16. It's about having more responsible gun ownership and this bogey man syndrome that's going around. All this "gov coming to take guns talk" is silly. If the gov wanted to come and take away guns they would of done it already. There is really nothing anyone can do, but it's not the case. Not even close.

[DayWalker]

I explained to you how a single poll conducted in a questionable manner by a questionable organization should not be used a proper evidence to support a claim or set of claims.

Perhaps you were on some crazy pills when you read my response because the message didn't get through.

And seeing the current trend with firearms related purchases and increases in pro 2nd amendment group memberships I'm quite confident that the true reality does not align with those results (or any other results) of the gun control movement.

propping up a single poll is no different than blindly disregarding it.
I would encourage you to post a recent poll showing that NRA households are not in favor of tighter restrictions on gun sales and safeguards against the menetally ill..


"The results don't align with my personal beliefs so they aren't real"

Are you sure you aren't 9 years old? Because the whole "They don't agree with me, so I'll post like a child screaming!!!! " thing is getting old fast.

...not sure where or how you interpreted screaming like a 9 year old...

perhaps a sexual fetish?

[MATRIX 2]

propping up a single poll is no different than blindly disregarding it.
I would encourage you to post a recent poll showing that NRA households are not in favor of tighter restrictions on gun sales and safeguards against the menetally ill..


"The results don't align with my personal beliefs so they aren't real"





...not sure where or how you interpreted screaming like a 9 year old...

perhaps a sexual fetish?

Ok then. I'm off to conduct my own poll (on any subject) and will use it as evidence to support a claim at a later date.

Wait, you wouldn't trust such a poll? Why not, since you are trusting a flawed poll in this case.

Also I highly doubt you would accept a poll on this subject, say from the NRA claiming it was biased.

Sorry but I don't give a single poll on any matter from any institution much validity. You will have to do a lot better than that.

I know all about those weapons. They are basically the same. AR 15 was built for the military and the military changed its nomenclature. This whole thing isn't about AR15 or M16. It's about having more responsible gun ownership and this bogey man syndrome that's going around. All this "gov coming to take guns talk" is silly. If the gov wanted to come and take away guns they would of done it already. There is really nothing anyone can do, but it's not the case. Not even close.

If that were the case then why would you take up a position supporting the proposed AWB? Instead of laws that would promote responsible gun ownership.


Utterly ludicrous. If they were to go door to door they would likely start a civil war. At the very lease there would be a lot of shootings as a result of such actions.

[Sub-stance1]

propping up a single poll is no different than blindly disregarding it.
I would encourage you to post a recent poll showing that NRA households are not in favor of tighter restrictions on gun sales and safeguards against the menetally ill..

Everything iv'e seen says that they support the restrictions but when you hear NRA reps talk they make it sound like all their guns(and rights) are slowly being taken away.

[MATRIX 2]

Everything iv'e seen says that they support the restrictions but when you hear NRA reps talk they make it sound like all their guns(and rights) are slowly being taken away.

That's because they are.

People realized very quickly that it is very difficult to achieve their goals outright, they would have to do so incrementally for the best chance of success.

[Molurus]

This won't pass. No need for this idiotic weapons ban to pass.

[Sub-stance1]

If that were the case then why would you take up a position supporting the proposed AWB? Instead of laws that would promote responsible gun ownership.

I would support anything if it means that it will keep people safer. Iv'e always believed that certain weapons don't belong in the hands of civilians, but i know some will always sneak through the cracks. Having stricter gun laws isn't gonna set us back. IMO it's been long overdue.

Utterly ludicrous. If they were to go door to door they would likely start a civil war. At the very lease there would be a lot of shootings as a result of such actions.

if the gov wanted to send the military door to door and confiscate weapons they could do that with ease, but that won't happen because they don't want to take away your right to bear arms. But if it ever came to that, I guarantee you the civilians would be on the losing end. You can't out shoot the military. We have more guns and they are much bigger.

[DayWalker]

I would support anything if it means that it will keep people safer. Iv'e always believed that certain weapons don't belong in the hands of civilians, but i know some will always sneak through the cracks. Having stricter gun laws isn't gonna set us back. IMO it's been long overdue.

if the gov wanted to send the military door to door and confiscate weapons they could do that with ease, but that won't happen because they don't want to take away your right to bear arms. But if it ever came to that, I guarantee you the civilians would be on the losing end. You can't out shoot the military. We have more guns and they are much bigger.

the underlying point being... if the US volunteer military for some reason turns against its own people... we're screwed.

[Molurus]

I would support anything if it means that it will keep people safer. Iv'e always believed that certain weapons don't belong in the hands of civilians, but i know some will always sneak through the cracks. Having stricter gun laws isn't gonna set us back. IMO it's been long overdue.

if the gov wanted to send the military door to door and confiscate weapons they could do that with ease, but that won't happen because they don't want to take away your right to bear arms. But if it ever came to that, I guarantee you the civilians would be on the losing end. You can't out shoot the military. We have more guns and they are much bigger.

It wouldn't set "us" ahead of today. If anything, it will set us back. There isn't any actual evidence or data that banning these weapons will prevent the crimes being done with these weapons. More people are killed with knives than guns. If you narrow it down to death from knives vs death from "assault weapons", then it just digs an even deeper hole for this liberal hogwash.

[DayWalker]

tell ya what... if a lunatic walks into a theater and starts trying to stab everyone to death... I gotta tell ya I feel really good about my odds of surviving the encounter.

[Sub-stance1]

the underlying point being... if the US volunteer military for some reason turns against its own people... we're screwed.

Pretty much. If it ever came to that.

It wouldn't set "us" ahead of today. If anything, it will set us back. There isn't any actual evidence or data that banning these weapons will prevent the crimes being done with these weapons. More people are killed with knives than guns. If you narrow it down to death from knives vs death from "assault weapons", then it just digs an even deeper hole for this liberal hogwash.

yea, but I can defend against a knife.

[Molurus]

tell ya what... if a lunatic walks into a theater and starts trying to stab everyone to death... I gotta tell ya I feel really good about my odds of surviving the encounter.

You can always make up scenarios that benefit your stance on something. That scenario doesn't change the facts though. Sorry.