« previous   misc   next »

I would like to know what others think about this.


By HEY YOU   Follow   Sat, 13 Apr 2013, 3:23pm PDT   1,170 views   47 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

I read the comments in the link.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=219764

« First     « Previous     Comments 8-47 of 47     Last »

drew_eckhardt   Sun, 14 Apr 2013, 1:09pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 8

Homeboy says

drew_eckhardt says

The parts about Mrs. Wheeler and her kind are entirely reasonable.

You scare me.

I'd worry more about self-identified "liberals" (I quote the term because they're so far removed from John Locke's original version which I identify with).

Some of those people told me that if they had a gun they'd have killed some one. They do have automobiles which are far more lethal. They pass laws like the one which allowed the Aurora, CO Century 16 to force its concealed carry permit holding patrons to leave their guns in their cars which led a spree killer to choose that establishment (over nearby unposted freedom respecting theaters) where he killed 12 and injured 58. They oppose laws which allow all law-abiding adults the option of carrying concealed which causes criminals to switch from confrontational crimes that lead to irrecoverable injuries to property crimes where victims can be made whole with good insurance coverage. The oppose laws protecting home owners who defend themselves with force which leads to criminal home invaisions (an issue in California but not Colorado).

The worst I do is say mean things that are true.

New Renter   Sun, 14 Apr 2013, 2:20pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 9

drew_eckhardt says

Some of those people told me that if they had a gun they'd have killed some one.

Saying and doing are two far different things

drew_eckhardt says

They do have automobiles which are far more lethal.

How do you figure? Can a maniac drive a car inside an elementary school and run down kids in a classroom?

drew_eckhardt says

They pass laws like the one which allowed the Aurora, CO Century 16 to force its concealed carry permit holding patrons to leave their guns in their cars which led a spree killer to choose that establishment (over nearby unposted freedom respecting theaters) where he killed 12 and injured 58.

Because God knows there needed to be more bullets flying around that crowded theater. Maybe one of them would have hit Holmes. Or maybe the body count would have been in the hundreds. What's more likely? Probably the latter.

drew_eckhardt says

They oppose laws which allow all law-abiding adults the option of carrying concealed which causes criminals to switch from confrontational crimes that lead to irrecoverable injuries to property crimes where victims can be made whole with good insurance coverage.

Mugger - give me your money or die!
Victim - Oh yeah, EAT LEAD SUCKER!

Muggers gun - Blam!

Victim gun - Blam!

Cops on scene - Asshole should have just handed over his wallet...

drew_eckhardt says

The oppose laws protecting home owners who defend themselves with force which leads to criminal home invaisions (an issue in California but not Colorado).

Depends on which firearm you are talking about. Birdshot loaded shotgun or an AK74 capable of taking out the sleeping baby next door?

Homeboy   Sun, 14 Apr 2013, 3:48pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Comment 10

drew_eckhardt says

I'd worry more about self-identified "liberals"

I wouldn't. They don't scare me. You do.

Homeboy   Sun, 14 Apr 2013, 3:50pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 11

drew_eckhardt says

They oppose laws which allow all law-abiding adults the option of carrying concealed which causes criminals to switch from confrontational crimes that lead to irrecoverable injuries to property crimes where victims can be made whole with good insurance coverage. The oppose laws protecting home owners who defend themselves with force which leads to criminal home invaisions (an issue in California but not Colorado).

Sounds like some sort of paranoid fantasy to me.

postbubblesucess   Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 1:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 12

Liberal laws foster crime and immorality, which leads to a lower standard of living, and ultimately the end of civilization as we know it.

CL   Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 2:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

New Renter says

Cops on scene - Asshole should have just handed over his wallet...

What do cops know about violent crime, and how to prevent deaths and such? Certainly not as much as gunnuts on the interweb!

Homeboy   Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 3:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 14

postbubblesucess says

Liberal laws foster crime and immorality, which leads to a lower standard of living, and ultimately the end of civilization as we know it.

Bullshit.

upisdown   Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 4:19am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 15

I followed the link, and in less than 20 seconds I clicked back because of his usual fascist/(G)Libertarian BS. I expexcted as much from that shit-for-brains hack, I just didn't think it would go that bad that quick.

Can anyone REALLY blame those parents? They have nobody to direct their loss/anger at, along with nobody to see justice aimed at and have a person prosecuted. Would they act or feel the same way if their child was killed by a drunk driver, along with laws to prevent that? Yes, it's because they are parents.

Time after time, these cases/incidents of school shootings have very similar perptrators and weapons to carry out their intended destruction. The exception of a few cases of extremist nutjobs going out in a blaze of glory, those and all other mass shootings, are done with weapons that were purchased leagally. The children/minors that are the perpetraotrs use their parents weapons, as was the case in the recent shooting spree. And there have recently been incidents where small children have accidentally shot other children or people because the firearm was left unattended and loaded.
A very large protion of our laws are based upon a single event or two of the same event within a short period. But the perpetraors could all be prosecuted by existing laws, and we don't need any extra laws to make the existing laws more or less effective.
The thing I find disgusting is the fact that in practically all the school shootings, the ACCESS to the weapons has never been brought up, just the weapon itself, and the magazine capacity. Would any sane or rational person leave $500 sitting around unsecured? But look at what any given weapon costs, and the lethal potential of it, and they are left unsecured.
Mandate SECURED weapons, not the legal purchase and use of them.

New Renter   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 11:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

IDDQD says

New Renter says

Mugger - give me your money or die!

Victim - Oh yeah, EAT LEAD SUCKER!

Muggers gun - Blam!

Victim gun - Blam!

Cops on scene - Asshole should have just handed over his wallet...

....

Depends on which firearm you are talking about. Birdshot loaded shotgun or an AK74 capable of taking out the sleeping baby next door?

Love paranoid fantasies. Keep'em coming folks!

Not till you share yours!

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:18pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 17

New Renter says

drew_eckhardt says

They do have automobiles which are far more lethal.

How do you figure? Can a maniac drive a car inside an elementary school and run down kids in a classroom?

Just wondering... if Adam Lanza took his mother's CAR and drove it like a maniac through the playground at Sandy Hook Elementary school and killed 20 kids playing and killed 6 teachers, would you be calling for a nationwide ban of cars??

Dan8267   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

Call it Crazy says

Just wondering... if Adam Lanza took his mother's CAR and drove it like a maniac through the playground at Sandy Hook Elementary school and killed 20 kids playing and killed 6 teachers, would you be calling for a nationwide ban of cars??

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

Now that doesn't mean guns should be banned, but it does mean all arguments in the form "people die from X, but X shouldn't be banned or restricted, so neither should guns".

Hell, if there should be no restraints on guns whatsoever, then why don't we let citizens arm themselves with nukes. OK, only citizens without a felony record. There, that's reasonable.

Obviously, there should be some restrictions on arms. The only question is where to draw the line and why. That's why all Second Amendment arguments are bullshit as well. They kinds of arms you need to defeat the U.S. military are far greater than we would allow civilians.

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 19

New Renter says

Mugger - give me your money or die!

Victim - Oh yeah, EAT LEAD SUCKER!

Muggers gun - Blam!

Victim gun - Blam!

Cops on scene - Asshole should have just handed over his wallet...

With these delusional fantasies of yours, you should be writing scripts for Hollywood fictional movies!!

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:30pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 20

Dan8267 says

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

Not true... guns and cars are inanimate objects that don't do a single thing unless they are operated by a human. Many objects you use every day can be used to kill someone, so why just single out guns?? That argument just doesn't hold up, unless you're a liberal....

Emotional responses don't negate logical thought processes...

curious2   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:46pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 21

elliemae says

It was wordy, poorly written and he lost me with his anger and lack of explanation.

I agree. I'd never heard of Karl Denninger before, but Homefool's comment made me wonder what else Karl had written, and it turns out this particular article was not nearly his best work. As Ellie remarked, this time Karl let his anger get in the way, but anyone who's curious might want to read this instead:

A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original “founders” of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with “guns, gays and God.”

***

Denninger runs Market Ticker, a financially-focused blog that has been strongly opposed to bank bailouts and has railed against excessive government spending. He founded the group FedUpUSA in early 2008, shortly after the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns.

In January of 2009, Market Ticker bloggers including Graham Makohoniuk and Stephanie Jasky suggested “mailing a tea bag” to Congress to protest the planned $800-billion stimulus package and $700-billion bank bailout. Denninger followed that up with a call for a “tea party” protest to coincide with President Obama’s inauguration, thus helping to unofficially launch the political movement.

“I saw everybody fawning over Obama with the inauguration and yet here he was appointing people like Larry Summer[s] and Tim Geithner to his team who were all part of creating the problem,” Denninger said in a media interview.

If I were thinking of a list of the worst people on the planet, Karl wouldn't crack the top 10, even with this ill considered article, for which Homefool would award him the #1 ranking.

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:59pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 22

curious2 says

If I were thinking of a list of the worst people on the planet, Karl wouldn't crack the top 10, even with this ill considered article, for which Homefool would award him the #1 ranking.

If you read Karl's writings, you will see being "politically correct" ain't his style.... he's one of the few economic bloggers that tells it like it truly is, without the sugar coating you get from the MSM....

elliemae   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 1:09pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

Dan8267 says

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

Well, there's target practice (not "to kill.") And there's to administer darts to anesthetize large animals or predators (not "to kill"). There's also to fill balloons up by shooting water into a clown's mouth. There's the act of holding one, which helps to ward off attackers.

For many people, guns are horrible things, But for others, they're a part of life and we don't give them a second thought. Almost anything can be a weapon if used wrong - or if used right. Knives are lethal weapons - should we limit people's abilities to them?

Guns are here to stay. They can be obtained legally or illegally. Changing the method of obtaining them doesn't mean that they'll be any harder to get.

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 1:24pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 24

elliemae says

Dan8267 says

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

Well, there's target practice (not "to kill.") And there's to administer darts to anesthetize large animals or predators (not "to kill"). There's also to fill balloons up by shooting water into a clown's mouth. There's the act of holding one, which helps to ward off attackers.

Exactly!!!

Through all these gun discussions that have been going on the last few months, that is the point that very few have talked about. Shooting by the majority of the population is a SPORT, and a gun was designed to poke a hole in an object, like a target, bottle, can, clay pidgeon, etc. or for improving accuracy or law enforcement training.

Unfortunately, in very RARE occasions, a gun is used to poke a hole in a person, usually by a mentally deranged individual or in a gang/drug related situation.

But, because the actions of a few, the government feels the need to pass drastic new laws affecting over 100 MILLION citizens.....

The statistic I would like to see is the total number of rounds fired from guns each day that are fired at a target or gun range versus fired at a person. I bet that ratio would be so small it would be almost unmeasurable....

Homeboy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 2:12pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 25

elliemae says

There's also to fill balloons up by shooting water into a clown's mouth.

Oh, I see. So I guess the purpose of forceps is to make a cartoon character's nose light up.

I often wonder if pro-gun arguments can possibly get any stupider, and sadly, the answer is always "yes".

New Renter   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 2:17pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

HiCall it Crazy says

New Renter says

drew_eckhardt says

They do have automobiles which are far more lethal.

How do you figure? Can a maniac drive a car inside an elementary school and run down kids in a classroom?

Just wondering... if Adam Lanza took his mother's CAR and drove it like a maniac through the playground at Sandy Hook Elementary school and killed 20 kids playing and killed 6 teachers, would you be calling for a nationwide ban of cars??

Depends. Was the car in question specifically designed to mass kill humans?

New Renter   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 2:33pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

Not true... guns and cars are inanimate objects that don't do a single thing unless they are operated by a human. Many objects you use every day can be used to kill someone, so why just single out guns?? That argument just doesn't hold up, unless you're a liberal....

Emotional responses don't negate logical thought processes...

So what other purposes do military "assault" style guns serve other than to put holes into people? Are they better for hunting than hunting guns?

These other objects you refer to - how many are useful for little other than to kill multiple people within a few moments within a few hundred yard radius and are not banned?

BTW if anyone here is emotional it's you.

New Renter   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 2:41pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

elliemae says

I, there's target practice (not "to kill.") And there's to administer darts to anesthetize large animals or predators (not "to kill"). There's also to fill balloons up by shooting water into a clown's mouth. There's the act of holding one, which helps to ward off attackers.

Guns are here to stay. They can be obtained legally or illegally. Changing the method of obtaining them doesn't mean that they'll be any harder to get.

Sure, but one does not need a military "assault" style rifle for target shooting any more than an 18 wheeler to run the kids to daycare. Dart guns are a different beast altogether. As for warding off an attacker a shotgun is far better choice.

Dan8267   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 3:04pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

Call it Crazy says

Not true... guns and cars are inanimate objects that don't do a single thing unless they are operated by a human

The exact same thing can be said of nukes. Saying that it makes no more sense to ban civilians from having nukes than from having cars is a ridiculous statement. So is making this analogy for guns, and for the exact same reason.

Again, this fact does not imply that banning guns is a good idea, only that the car analogy does not hold.

Dan8267   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 3:08pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

elliemae says

For many people, guns are horrible things, But for others, they're a part of life and we don't give them a second thought. Almost anything can be a weapon if used wrong - or if used right. Knives are lethal weapons - should we limit people's abilities to them?

Guns are here to stay. They can be obtained legally or illegally. Changing the method of obtaining them doesn't mean that they'll be any harder to get.

That may all be well and true, but it doesn't change the fact that the car analogy doesn't hold water. We allow felons to drive cars -- hell, it's essential that they do so they can get jobs, be productive, and rehabilitate themselves. However, we don't allow felons to have guns, even if the felony is completely non-violent, for example, a drug conviction. So clearly, guns and cars aren't even remotely similar in terms of how we treat them legally.

Again, my shooting down of a specific false argument of one side does not represent an endorsement of the other.

Dan8267   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 3:13pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

Call it Crazy says

Unfortunately, in very RARE occasions, a gun is used to poke a hole in a person, usually by a mentally deranged individual or in a gang/drug related situation.

Unfortunately, in very RARE occasions, a plane is used to fly into a building, usually by a mentally deranged religious individual. Yet, I had to sacrifice all my rights and dignity as the federal government passed countless tyrannical laws to fight "terrorism" while breaking hundreds of existing laws against wiretapping, habeas corpus, due process, etc. Where's all the outrage against that? Surely, your right not to be strip searched is more important than your right to shoot a gun.

I'm not saying don't be defensive about gun rights, but it's hard to take you guys seriously about gun rights when violations of basic human rights and human dignity don't seem to register on your radar.

Dan8267   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 3:16pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

New Renter says

As for warding off an attacker a shotgun is far better choice.

And a smart phone is even better than that. Cameras hooked up to 911, the Internet, and GPS: a criminal's worst nightmare.

Did a 6"7' muscle bound ball of testosterone ever get uppity with you? Pull out a smart phone with a camera and start dialing 911, and you'll see how fast that coward flees. Now that's an app.

New Renter   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 6:49pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

As for warding off an attacker a shotgun is far better choice.

And a smart phone is even better than that. Cameras hooked up to 911, the Internet, and GPS: a criminal's worst nightmare.

Did a 6"7' muscle bound ball of testosterone ever get uppity with you? Pull out a smart phone with a camera and start dialing 911, and you'll see how fast that coward flees. Now that's an app.

Your smart phone must be better than mine. Mine takes a few seconds to focus and adjust to the light. Not many crims will be courteous enough to pose.

Now if I had a shotgun trained on them, that WOULD be different.

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 10:37pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 34

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, in very RARE occasions, a plane is used to fly into a building, usually by a mentally deranged religious individual. Yet, I had to sacrifice all my rights and dignity as the federal government passed countless tyrannical laws to fight "terrorism" while breaking hundreds of existing laws against wiretapping, habeas corpus, due process, etc. Where's all the outrage against that? Surely, your right not to be strip searched is more important than your right to shoot a gun.

There, you made my point exactly... because of a RARE occasion of a plane being flown into a building, your gov't makes MILLIONS of us all go through the TSA pat down crap and you agreed to give up a lot of your personal rights..... Are you happy about that???

Now, with guns, they are following the same play book because of a few RARE occasions....

So, what rights and freedoms are you going to allow them to take NEXT because of the actions of a few RARE mentally deranged people???

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 10:39pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 35

New Renter says

Depends. Was the car in question specifically designed to mass kill humans?

Every car can be used to kill large numbers of people, which one do you want them to ban?? Just Chevys??

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 10:45pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 36

New Renter says

So what other purposes do military "assault" style guns serve other than to put holes into people? Are they better for hunting than hunting guns?

OK, answer this question that I posted above:

Call it Crazy says

The statistic I would like to see is the total number of rounds fired from guns each day that are fired at a target or gun range versus fired at a person. I bet that ratio would be so small it would be almost unmeasurable....

Give me a number, how many rounds are fired EVERY day from your military "assault" style guns that DON'T hit a person??

Once you find that number, come back and tell me that there is a major problem with these firearms and they should be banned...

Call it Crazy   Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 11:26pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 37

Dan8267 says

The exact same thing can be said of nukes. Saying that it makes no more sense to ban civilians from having nukes than from having cars is a ridiculous statement. So is making this analogy for guns, and for the exact same reason.

How do you make the HUGE jump from guns to nukes?? Talk about extremes... Funny, I don't see nukes in this chart... but I do see vehicles..

*

*
Dan8267 says

Again, this fact does not imply that banning guns is a good idea, only that the car analogy does not hold.

Well, in that case and thinking, there are a few other items that should be banned too, like knives, bats, hammers and fists:

*

elliemae   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 12:55am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 38

I have a shotgun (410). It's a nice little gun, and if something is attempting to attack my critters it'll hurt 'em and, if I'm close enough, make them mincemeat. The problem is, they'll make my critters mincemeat too.

A pistol is easier to wield, if the correct ammo is used it will kill the animal I intend rather than an innocent one who's viewed as a meal by the aforementioned predator. A rifle would also do so, and from further away - but close up, isn't the best option.

If someone were in my home, the sound of the action of cocking my shotgun, along with my verbal warnings, would probably stop an intruder dead in his tracks (no pun intended). I know that this sounds sexist, but a girl with a gun is something every man should fear.

Assault rifles? Not so much. They are great in combat - but most of our police departments don't carry them while the worst of the criminals do. Remember the shooting in Hollywood, where the dude was in combat gear after robbing a bank and was walking down the street shooting cops right & left? The ammo that the police used wasn't armor piercing, and the police ended up borrowing weapons and ammo from a local gun store.

Our police should be better armed. I don't believe that assault weapons are necessary to anyone except the military, and I believe that we are spending too much money on failed bomber programs that should be spent better arming the guys on the front lines.

the problem is that the assault weapons are out there - "semi-automatic rifles" become automatic with a few minor, easily available adjustments. We can't take them back at this point. limiting the sale of them would be a great start, but it's too little, too late.

Besides, the argument that there could be a "red dawn" situation where the average joe will need assault rifles to defend themselves is very possible. I know that, every time there's a Hollywood film crew in my general area, I'd like to shoot their asses for fucking up traffic, causing me to have to prove I live in my neighborhood and making it difficult to accomplish such tasks as getting the mail without showing my ID to some idiot who's been hired to keep some overpriveleged "star" safe. An assault rifle would surely come in handy in that situation.

And I could sell my film rights afterward. :)

Blurtman   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 2:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 39

I think our founding fathers intended a well armed militia to be well armed. That would include tanks, missile launchers, and yes, nukes. Battleships, destroyers, aircraft carriers, the works. Why stop at automatic weapons?

New Renter   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 4:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 40

Call it Crazy says

New Renter says

So what other purposes do military "assault" style guns serve other than to put holes into people? Are they better for hunting than hunting guns?

OK, answer this question that I posted above:

Call it Crazy says

The statistic I would like to see is the total number of rounds fired from guns each day that are fired at a target or gun range versus fired at a person. I bet that ratio would be so small it would be almost unmeasurable....

Give me a number, how many rounds are fired EVERY day from your military "assault" style guns that DON'T hit a person??

Once you find that number, come back and tell me that there is a major problem with these firearms and they should be banned...

target shooting is done either as training to hit a target or to tune the
weapon to hit a target. With assault style weapons that target is a human. That's is what they are designed to do. If large numbers of cars were purpose built to mow down people and said cars were being used to mow down manniquens on training ranges HELL YES you'd see and outcry to ban those cars.

New Renter   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 5:50am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 41

IDDQD says

New Renter says

With assault style weapons that target is a human. That's is what they are designed to do.

Military weapons were allowed to evolve re their ergos and capacity, whereas so-called "sporting" guns were artificially restricted by hunting (and import) laws, not because the targets are non-human. Sporting guns are simply frozen in time by regulations and tradition. The "intended target" argument becomes even more ridiculous if you consider that M40 sniper rifle used by US Marines is basically a Rem 700 hunting rifle.

So why again does a hunter need an assault style weapon unless the intended target is human?

New Renter   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 5:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 42

elliemae says

I have a shotgun (410). It's a nice little gun, and if something is attempting to attack my critters it'll hurt 'em and, if I'm close enough, make them mincemeat. The problem is, they'll make my critters mincemeat too.

A pistol is easier to wield, if the correct ammo is used it will kill the animal I intend rather than an innocent one who's viewed as a meal by the aforementioned predator. A rifle would also do so, and from further away - but close up, isn't the best option.

Thank you! This is the kind of answer I am seeking, one based on experience and logic.

JodyChunder   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 7:26am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 43

Dan8267 says

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

It's true. More generally, they are machines designed specifically to destroy. However, I might argue that the bagpipes are another such machine.

New Renter   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 7:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 44

IDDQD says

New Renter says

So why again does a hunter need an assault style weapon unless the intended target is human?

I don't know what do you mean by "assault style weapon". Do you mean modern firearm? Hunter might want to employ a modern firearm because of it's better ergonomics, accuracy and lighter weight.

The proposed classification by type of intended target makes sense only if we're talking about cartridges and even then the overlap between "military" and "hunting" cartridges is too wide for any meaningful distinction.

Applied to weapon itself it doesn't make any sense at all: flintlocks had human as their intended targets too, are they "evil black rifles" now?

High capacity detachable magazines, semi automatic operation (with option to convert to full on rock and roll). Lets start with those.

New Renter   Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 7:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 45

JodyChunder says

Dan8267 says

Guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Comparing them to any other device with non-lethal utility is disingenuous.

It's true. More generally, they are machines designed specifically to destroy. However, I might argue that the bagpipes are another such machine.

Nah, bagpipes only make you WISH you were dead.

drew_eckhardt   Wed, 24 Apr 2013, 8:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 46

Blurtman says

I think our founding fathers intended a well armed militia to be well armed. That would include tanks, missile launchers, and yes, nukes. Battleships, destroyers, aircraft carriers, the works. Why stop at automatic weapons?

Right!

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal"

Those wouldn't be much good if civilians couldn't have weapons like a government, most notably private war ships which served to good effect in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.

If a billionaire wants a battleship or Bill Gates wants to float a carrier group the letter of the law allows that.

I would support a constitutional amendment banning nukes and lethal or permanently disabling chemical agents for both private citizens and governments. Those things might be too dangerous to bystanders in a potential conflict, although if they are too dangerous or us as individuals they're too much for a government composed of those indiviuals.

New Renter   Wed, 24 Apr 2013, 8:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 47

drew_eckhardt says

If a billionaire wants a battleship or Bill Gates wants to float a carrier group the letter of the law allows that.

And the US Navy reserves the right to send it straight to the bottom...

« First     « Previous comments    

HEY YOU is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net