# Firearms (split from Democratic Pres. Candidate Disc.)



## Arden (Sep 7, 2003)

And what a good job GW has done to keep that tradition.

Just for everyone's information, *nowhere* in the Constitution of the United States does it say that we have a right to own weapons.  Read the 2nd Amendment again, and again if you don't get it the first time: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  This means that we can take up weapons to defend our country in case of war, if there is not a sufficient military to do the job.  This does not say you can own a handgun simply because you want to, much as the NRA twists it about.

Boy, I love this mudslinging!  Keep it coming, guys!  I'm too opinionated, and there's too much here, for me to respond, but I like hearing this stuff.

Where are Serp and RacerX?  They've got some good stashes of mud in their arsenals.


----------



## mr. k (Sep 7, 2003)

Arden, I'm pretty sure that the second amendment of the constitution was drafted partly with the right to bear arms.  There is no conditional in the above quote that says there are only some times where you may bear arms.
And plus, the way the constitution is being treated by politicians and lawmakers today, it is subject to some very lenient interpretations.


----------



## habilis (Sep 7, 2003)

I love guns. I lust after the Heckler & Koch G36 Compact like I lust after a G5 Pwerbook. 






HK G36 Compact





HK A36 w/ Grenade Launcher





HK PSG .50 cal sniper rifle

Admit it, you feel the lust too.


----------



## mr. k (Sep 7, 2003)

I bet you could go to the gun shop and buy one of those if you really wanted...
That's kind of scary!


----------



## habilis (Sep 7, 2003)

By the way, remember the happy ending in the movie Red Dawn where there is a monument to the guerilla fighters that won back America? Yeah, I thought that was cool too, but that ending is not possible if you take away our right to bear arms. Guns are a non-issue. If you're smart, you put a trigger lock on all your weapons, and keep them far out of reach. Criminals have access to a massive aresenal out there, unrestricted, unregistered, they always will. They operate completely Outside the System. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## Arden (Sep 7, 2003)

Actually, I have Tactical Ops for UT.  I don't need to lust after those things.  What are you going to do with them anyway?  Blow up PC users?


----------



## habilis (Sep 7, 2003)

There's just something about the feeling of holding that cold, heavy steel in your hands that is very seductive my brother, like holding a woman in your hands - but not a cold heavy one, a curvy warm one.


----------



## Cat (Sep 8, 2003)

> Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


 Rhetoric. People kill people *with guns*. Yes, kitchen knifes also can be used to kill, but guns have as their exclusive function to kill, will kitchen knifes and rocks can be (mis-)used for killing but are not directly intended to kill. Guns, like those you depicted are intended exclusively for killing people: or do you hunt deer with a grenade launcher? If you enjoy shooting, go to the luna park, at least you can win a teddy. By owning weapons no solution is provided to the problems criminals pose. Do you think they are actually deterred by the thought that their victim could be armed? I don't think so: what is more dangerous than a weapon is the willingness to use it, the determination to kill if necessary. Criminals mostly have that, civilians which possess arms not. Therefor I think that it's a Bad Thing to let everyone possess weapons. I would approve of a system were you can only possess weapons of a restricted calibre after having obtained some sort of license, just like a driving license. Have you got any idea how many accidents are caused by people with guns? Children shooting by accident, we were just playing, teens shooting at birds with their parents weapons, fooling around, guns going off while cleaning, drunks shooting in anger, just because, idiots using guns instead of firecrackers to celebrate etc. etc. Guns? No thank you.


----------



## elektro (Sep 8, 2003)

RUN!


----------



## elektro (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I love guns. I lust after the Heckler & Koch G36 Compact like I lust after a G5 Pwerbook.
> 
> 
> ...



you are mad! YES!::alien::


----------



## monktus (Sep 8, 2003)

Habilis, people like you really scare me. I'm glad that I don't live in America, which saddens me because there's so much that I love about your country. And aside from the gun control discussion, Heckler & Koch are one hell of an evil company.


----------



## habilis (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> I would approve of a system were you can only possess weapons of a restricted calibre after having obtained some sort of license, just like a driving license. Have you got any idea how many accidents are caused by people with guns? Children shooting by accident, we were just playing, teens shooting at birds with their parents weapons, fooling around, guns going off while cleaning, drunks shooting in anger, just because, idiots using guns instead of firecrackers to celebrate etc


I agree, and that's basically what we have now, 50 cal is the legal max, you have to have a permit for larger calibur and options and concealed carry. What you talked to there was the idiot quotient, the people that laws are made for. Like I said before, if you're a responsible, respectful, intelligent individual, you:
A. Have a trigger lock
B. Do NOT keep the gun loaded
C. Remove the firing bolt/pin before storing them
D. Keep weapons completely out of reach of children &
E. If your children _can_ reach, LOCK them up in a gun safe.

That's what I do.

Firing a precision weapon into targets, such as concrete blocks, cinder blocks, milk jugs full of water, old TV sets, found junk, fun stuff like that, from a few hundred yards is exciting. I have no need or desire to kill people or living things.


----------



## Arden (Sep 8, 2003)

Habilis, I'm glad I don't live near you.  You'd probably come over to my house and shoot a grenade through my front window with your A36.


----------



## habilis (Sep 8, 2003)

Yes. I forgot to add that firing precision weapons into ardens house and cat is a lot of fun as well. If you would like me to show up at your childs birthday party, I do a lot of fun tricks with my M1 fragmentation grenade juggling act. contact me at m1fragginclown@deadkidsandbigfun.com for billing and showtimes.


----------



## Arden (Sep 9, 2003)

LOL... you can show up at my work, we cater to kids.


----------



## Cat (Sep 9, 2003)

Habilis: I am very glad to hear that you treat your weapons responsibly. However, I severely doubt that this is how the majority of gun possessors treats their weapons. I think (ex-) policemen, (ex-) soldiers and (ex-) hunters know how to treat a weapon responsibly, but there are a lot of people who only know about the last thing you said: shooting is cool. As long as these kind of people have access to weapons, even if of a minor calibre, my criticism stands.

I do not think all those who wield weapons are mindlessly violent and untrustworthy, but I think that legislation that permits such a free ownership of weapons does indeed entail more risks and problems than it "solves".


----------



## elektro (Sep 9, 2003)

Flagrant Vagrant!


----------



## mdnky (Sep 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Just for everyone's information, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it say that we have a right to own weapons.  Read the 2nd Amendment again, and again if you don't get it the first time: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  This means that we can take up weapons to defend our country in case of war, if there is not a sufficient military to do the job. *



Go research the term militia as it applied at the time the constitution was written.  In essence, it meant farmers with pitch-forks (because the farmers, i.e. people of the nation) were being kept from holding weapons.   In other words, a group of able bodied men who were regular citizens.

_the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed_

That plainly says itright to own.

It has nothing to do with defending our country against foreign invaders.  It has to do with defending our rights against tyrannical government within our borders.  You have to remember, at the time this was written the majority of people were highly ticked off at the King of England, who was a tyrant a few thousand miles away.


----------



## mdnky (Sep 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



The PSG isn't a .50 cal...it's a 7.62 x 51mm cartridge (NATO standard round), in the caliber version it's known as the .308 Winchester.

http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/specappframeset.html

I know very few people who would "lust" over these...the one guy who does is ex-ARMY special ops, a cop, and trains the swat teams for the area I live in.





> _Originally posted by mr. K _
> *I bet you could go to the gun shop and buy one of those if you really wanted...
> That's kind of scary! *



Not without alot of money for the PSG....around $15,000.  For less than $1000 you can buy a standard hunting rifle and some upgrades (stock, barrel) and get similar accuracy.  The others are Class III/NFA weapons and not purchasable unless you're an LEO for sanctioned department purchase (i.e. member of PD, purchasing for the department) or a FFA licensed Class III/NFA holder (i.e. dealer) for demo purposes.


----------



## Arden (Sep 9, 2003)

I believe the PSG is $4500 in Tac Ops.

Anyway, back on topic, the following cartoon appeared in today's Local section of the Modesto Bee.  I thought it would be fitting for this thread.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I love guns. I lust after the Heckler & Koch G36 Compact like I lust after a G5 Pwerbook.
> 
> 
> ...


I imagine you wouldn't be using those for hunting.  

Hunting animals, that is.


----------



## Arden (Sep 10, 2003)

Yes, because everyone uses a subcompact automatic to riddle the animal with holes, or a grenade launcher to blow it up, or a sniper rifle so the animal won't even know you're there, despite the fact that you could never see it from any distance for all the trees.


----------



## mdnky (Sep 10, 2003)

Split from the original thread as it was WAY off topic.

Original Thread: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35962&perpage=10&pagenumber=4


----------



## Satcomer (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Yes, because everyone uses a subcompact automatic to riddle the animal with holes, or a grenade launcher to blow it up, or a sniper rifle so the animal won't even know you're there, despite the fact that you could never see it from any distance for all the trees. *



subcompact automatic: illegal

grenade launcher: illegal

50 cal to take out the annoying CAR cutting in front of you: LEGAL.


----------



## toast (Sep 11, 2003)

The Grenade launcher is legal.
Errr, in Unreal Tournament, I mean.

I like bowling very much.


----------



## Crusty (Sep 12, 2003)

As amazing as all the arguments for and against having guns are...the real problem is still not guns...its people...people kill...and until the time arrives when humanity as a whole learns that this is wrong the arguement is moot...my 2 cents...spend it how u like


----------



## monktus (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm still of the opinion that firearms should have more control in the US but you have a point Crusty. Canada also has a fairly high level of gun ownership yet the Canadians don't shoot each other nearly as much as Americans do. I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to watch Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore makes some very good points. On the other hand, countries such as Britain, Germany, France etc also have very low levels of gun crime compared to the US and we have much much tighter gun control. Theres the argument that criminals will get guns regardless and that 'ordinary decent folk' should be able to buy guns to protect themselves. Well, I'm not saying that Britain doesn't have gun crime (London and Manchester especially) but we doe have strict gun control and there are proportionally MUCH fewer deaths than the US. I can wander about Glasgow and not have to be afraid of getting shot. I was in London recently (nowhere shady I admit) and felt the same.  New York on the other hand did not give me the same feeling of ease, while I never felt completely unsafe, it is unsettling to see every police officer carry a gun.


----------



## mdnky (Sep 12, 2003)

I have to agree with Crusty.

Cars kill more people a year, Alcohol kills more, Tobacco kills more,  etc.

The only way a gun can kill someone is if another person: 1.) Makes the choice to use it in such a manner, or 2.) Is reckless.  The same goes for the other above-mentioned items.

Another point:  Unreal Tournament is a game and has nothing to do with the issue that was originally being talked about.  If you can't separate "the real" from fantasy, maybe you should reconsider posting on this topic.  Its not something that you should get a laugh from.

Also, I want to reiterate this:  This thread was split from another because it veered way off the original topic.  The first post in this thread by Arden is actually a reply to a generalization about CA being anti-2nd amendment, mainly referring to CCW and ownership issues.  It was the best spot I could find to split the thread from.  So don't blast Arden for "starting" this as a flame, he was merely replying.


----------



## monktus (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mdnky _
> *
> Cars kill more people a year, Alcohol kills more, Tobacco kills more,  etc. *



Yes but the US still has proportionally more gun releated deaths than any other country. Just because people die in car accidents too doesn't mean to say that it's okay for people to get shot, or run over for that matter.

America has to ask itself why so many more people die by shooting than any other nation.



> *
> The only way a gun can kill someone is if another person: 1.) Makes the choice to use it in such a manner, or 2.) Is reckless.  The same goes for the other above-mentioned items.*



Again, why does it happen so much? The US has to find out why. Something's killing your couuntrymen, fix it.



> *
> Another point:  Unreal Tournament is a game and has nothing to do with the issue that was originally being talked about.  If you can't separate "the real" from fantasy, maybe you should reconsider posting on this topic.  Its not something that you should get a laugh from. *



I think toast (forgive me if I'm wrong dude) was being ironic and his comment referred to the ridiculous amount of firepower that can be legally bought in the US.


----------



## Arden (Sep 13, 2003)

MD, that's exactly the point that Toast was trying to make.  Unreal Tournament is a game, but it is a game that simulates (rather realistically, as well) the destruction of your fellow human being (well usually they're human) at every cost, and if you can't separate that fact from reality, then you shouldn't be allowed near firearms.  This goes back to the whole "glorifying violence" argument.

I also think that guns are currently a lesser issue than others, and while tragic, deaths from gunshot wounds take a backseat, so to speak, to tobacco, alcohol and driving accidents (and the combination of the latter two).

So please, don't "blast" me.  It's not exactly legal.


----------

