KamikazeJohnson
11/22/02 04:37 PM
142.161.0.92
|
As I was reading the "Star Gate" thread, a comment about guns reminded me of a recent incident here in Winnipeg
Last week, police were attempting to trace a machine gun, and the search led them to a local collecter, with an arsenal that made their eyes pop out...nearly 500 weapons, including bombs, grenades, bazookas, and a 9-foot long missile. Apparently, they had to call in the military to identify half the stuff. And rumour has it that the collector told authorities that there are 3 or 4 other local collectors with even more!!!!!!!!! (which, by my count, means that Winnipeg collectors can nearly match the entire Canadian military  )
Anyway, anyone have any opinions about individuals collecting such insane amounts of hardware? Anyone have their own crazy stories about collectors?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Spartan
11/23/02 01:55 AM
172.174.144.202
|
Uh... I have a rifle and a shotgun. And if I save some money on my next pay check from going to the rent and bills I can buy some ammunition to go down to the gun range and practice.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Diablo
11/25/02 07:20 PM
66.203.180.31
|
I plan to have something like that except with swords and various other blades. already got 7 swords, 22 knives and about a doezen shurikens.
|
Karagin
11/26/02 12:57 AM
68.21.149.129
|
Well there is the Armilite AR-50 Bolt Action .50 calibare rifle I bought in August of 2001 and then there was the CEMET I picked up in January of this year, as well as the two .357s I already own, along with M1911 and my all time fav of my small but growing collect my semi-automatic BAR. 
And I know folks who have 6 times what I have and some of them have friends with a lot more...hey it's now worse then some of the miniature collections out there. 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
11/27/02 06:32 PM
67.86.58.8
|
I just don't see the allure, let alone the need.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
11/27/02 08:32 PM
63.12.141.105
|
I'll second that Nathan. I served in the military and would prefer the weapons to be left there rather than some weird blanket of comfort or something like that.
Some of these people would openly attack say police officers if they came to collect these items as a threat to society as well.... sick sick sick.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
11/29/02 06:45 PM
68.21.149.72
|
"The right to bear arms..." I think the second admenment to the US Constitution says it well enough for me and as I once told someone they take my guns from my cold dead hands.
Tell they actually change the law that let's us here in the US own firearms then for the most part they need not fear 99% of the gun owners...but once again it is clear that those who have spread their propoganda of fear and misunderstanding have won at least one convert....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
MadWolf
11/30/02 05:11 PM
134.53.144.26
|
Hey My friend, You haven't Been to a kentucky gun show have you? There they have Howitzers in bargin bins and AK-47's are used as decor, and automatic shotguns are labeled are " perfict for home defense!". Guns are very real and as much as the 2nd amendment protects the american people, Most dont care if there are laws. 
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
|
Greyslayer
12/01/02 09:56 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'"The right to bear arms..." I think the second admenment to the US Constitution says it well enough for me and as I once told someone they take my guns from my cold dead hands.'
You 'think'? Well if you 'think' it is then by all means carry a large arsenal of boomsticks about. What is an amendment? It is a change brought about by a need. Do you NEED weapons only really useful in killing as many people as possible in a short amount of time? Just how many house burgulars do you think will attack your house?
We in Australia do not have this stupid '2nd Amendment', we have laws and codes restricting the use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and hopefully soon will have laws to the same effect almost outright banning semi-automatic pistols. (except for use at and probably stored at gun clubs). What viable usage do they serve except potential to kill many people?
Of course the argument of:
Guns don't kill people, people kill poeple can ring true except less people get killed if they don't have the right equipment or readily gain access to a armory of weapons some militaries would struggle to have.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
12/01/02 10:20 PM
68.21.149.25
|
Laws only work against the folks who follow them, the criminals will always have ways of getting what ever kind of firearm they need...NO matter the laws.
Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes another human being to pull the trigger which makes the gun's parts work to cause the bullet to leave the barrel...so actually another person does the killing, since he or she set it in motion.
I am sure you have seen the statistics from the anti-gun groups who say thing like every 10 minutes a person is killed by a gun, well looking at that, the is control would be suffering from a DROP in population IF those lies...oh sorry statistics were true.
It is a fact that more folks are killed DAILY by cars then by any kind of fire arm in this country, but that isn't shown by anti-gun crowd...
The 2nd admenment isn't stuipid, it was put there by the founders of the United States to prevent any one body from taking over this country with out the FREE and POPULAR support of the citizens. Thus a coup by a group generals would in essence be meet by an armed and hostile populous.
Do I feel the need to carry around a firearm...yes I do. Do I feel the need to own a fire arm? Yes I do.
I have been around guns my whole life and nothing you spout from the Anti-Gun groups, who are the same nuts who are all in favor letting murders, rapist and other nice folks out of jail because the conditions are in their opinion inhumane, is going to change my mind. As long as the crooks can get a firearm, I will keep mine.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Spartan
12/01/02 10:36 PM
172.164.3.123
|
Grey, if all the people killed by guns were instead stabbed to death with kitchen knives would that make you feel any better? Should we then ban kitchen knives? Or baseball bats? Or golf clubs? Or hockey sticks? Or shovels? Or axes? Or machetes? Or hammers? Or screwdrivers? Or drills? Or saws? What about tent stakes? Or pipe wrenches? The weights at the gym could easily crush a skull, shall we ban them too?
And what about me? I can kill a person several different ways without a weapon, should my hands be cut off?
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Greyslayer
12/01/02 11:03 PM
216.14.192.226
|
That is the pathetic drivel spouted by the pro-gun lobby. Knives need alot more action than just point and click. Did I say EVERY SINGLE GUN SHOULD BE BANNED? Hmmmm nope. I aimed specifically at Automatic and semiautomatic rifles and self loading pistols. Why? Because they are capable of multiple deaths in a short period of time compared to their slower loading cousins. Do you want hand grenades to be a common to household item? How about Carl Gustev 84 mm (commonly called the Charlie Gutsache) launcher? Where would the stupidity stop? It wouldn't without intelligent legislation aimed at not giving small numbers of people everything they want at the cost of protection for the rest.
If its harder to 'criminals' to get these weapons would it not be better than how easy it currently is?
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
12/01/02 11:17 PM
68.21.149.25
|
You missed the point, the criminals have it far easier in getting out lawed or banned firearms...since they don't have to report the sale or worry about the tranist taxes and the other paper work NO ONE KNOWS WHO SOLD IT TO THEM OR WHERE THEY GOT IT FROM.
But as I said more folks are killed by cars in the US then hand guns or any other firearm...but I don't see them out lawing cars...
See for me or any law abiding citizen to buy a semi-automatic weapon we have to get a federal firearms license...there are three to four class that tell you what you can and can't buy etc...that means the FBI, ATF and the local police have a record of the sale and they know you have the weapon. Now if you resell the weapon you have to fill out the paper work again showing to whom you sold it, and the buyer has to fill out owner ship papers etc...
Meanwhile P-Daddy and Hipmack goes and sees the local dealer in everything and buys a gun of any type, and there is a only a cash transaction and You don't know me comment if you get caught with the gun etc...
So what happens when all of these laws that you seem to favor get passed? The folks who are doing nothing wrong, who bought the guns they own for target shooting, hunting, compatention, or simple to collect, are now told that they have to give up their property because some one over reacted and passed a knee jerk law that piles up on top all of the other laws and ends up only hurting the law abiding folks and the criminals are still doing things their way.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
12/02/02 03:27 PM
134.39.195.23
|
...to the Constitution of the United States is part of the Bill of Rights, essentially the conditiions under which the People of the United States agreed to Accept the New Constitution.
It states that "A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" (emphasis mine.)
Historical examples (which I have trouble thinking of off the top of my head...) have proven this correct. A country with a well-armed populace is impossible to invade and occupy for any length of time, while a society with tight controls on armaments is an easy conquest, whether for a foreign invader or their own corrupt government.
The United States, basically, was a country founded by rebels who wanted the continued RIGHT to have the MEANS to revolt. The signal for the revolution, as the last time, is the time they try to take our guns (or swords, as that was actually the right the ammendment was meant to protect...) away.
By the way, I'm not a gun owner. I just happen to think the entire CONCEPT of gun control is STUPID. It is proven IN ALL INSTANCES to INCREASE the rate of violent crime. Think on that.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
KamikazeJohnson
12/02/02 05:31 PM
142.161.119.103
|
>>I just happen to think the entire CONCEPT of gun control is STUPID. It is proven IN ALL INSTANCES to INCREASE the rate of violent crime. Think on that.<<
Hmmm...I can't argue with your statistical claims, but in theory, there are a number of good reasons for some form of gun control/regulation.
First of all, if each and every firearm had to be registered:
1) it would be much easier to identify the weapon used in any gun-related incident, providing a good starting point for an investigation, thereby saving time and money on law enforcement
2) the extra charge of "possessing an unregistered firearm" for those get picked up while avoiding registration...useful as a deterrent, among other things
Second, if certain weapons (assault rifles, rocket launchers, fully automatic weaponry, etc.) were completely outlawed outside the military and other select cases, it would make such items more difficult for Joe Criminal to obtain, as well as adding an extra means of stopping his criminal activities.
I agree that all-out banning of firearms is a bad idea that would cause a drastic backlash, but I see little harm and many advantages to reasonable control and regulation of personal weapons.
From the pro-gun perspective, I remember hearing some time ago about a city/state/country/something (I don't recall where) where each and every household was legally required to keep a gun on the premises. Apparently, violent crime in that area dropped dramatically, and stayed down, once that legislation was passed. Food for thought...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Greyslayer
12/02/02 05:34 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'The folks who are doing nothing wrong, who bought the guns they own for target shooting, hunting, compatention, or simple to collect, are now told that they have to give up their property because some one over reacted and passed a knee jerk law that piles up on top all of the other laws and ends up only hurting the law abiding folks and the criminals are still doing things their way.'
If you have a insanely low level of gun control then of course those who deal illegally in firearms can wheel and deal these items easily. The fact is the weapons themselves are not illegal, but rather the person holding the weapon has aquired it illegally.
Competition isn't a water-cooled Vicker, nor is it a AK-47. Competition shooting usually involves specially designed rifles for the particular event (ie Trap Shooting), and training for competitions are usual done from a shooting range with its own gun 'magazine' (a magazine for those that don't know it is a storage facility that stores weapons and ammo, usually not in the same area though), or at least a gun safe up to minimum specifications.
With the sniper you guys had recently it was really funny, you had gun lobby groups and anti-computer game groups blaming a retarded computer game for the killing saying it couldn't be someone who has been taught how to use a weapon properly. Oh how wrong they were, even military service people had jumped on the bandwagon and all groups involed should've ended up with egg on their collective faces but didn't unfortunately.
btw what do you hunt with an Uzi?
Death to usage ratio of cars to guns is totally different though. More people per capita own or use vehiclar transport than own guns (I am NOT saying there are less guns than cars but individual owners/drivers also use a car for longer and more often than a gun). From your warped perception of logic we should stop breathing air as the oxidation kills more people than both cars and guns combined? Get a grip and use the noggin a bit more than what it seems it is currently being used for. If you think car laws are too lax there is nothing stopping you saying (I think that Driving while under the influence should be targetted or that police should use more speed cameras at 'black spots') a sweeping generalisation like 'cars kill more therefore cars are worse than guns' is just ordinary.
The right to bear arms doesn't mean you can bear ANY arms. Why not have 'arms' of mass destruction I mean that should still fit in the bill quite easily, you should be able to (though currently doubt you can) recognize that a harsh line has to be drawn in the sand as to what arms can be used and what cannot.
I think I am wasting my breath on this though, people obviously worship carnage over there.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
12/02/02 06:00 PM
68.21.149.210
|
It is clear that you are not listening.
Crooks will find away to get weapons no matter what the law says. And actually the US has strict gun control laws, but again, the ones who want to get around them do so, and those who follow the laws are the one who end up having to face more of the same everytime a crook is caught.
As for the rest it's clear that you have bought the Hollywood version of the US populus and have bought into the anti-gun groups line of thinking. So yes you are wasting your breath.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
12/02/02 06:38 PM
216.14.192.226
|
What the? Hollywood? Isn't Charleton Heston the leader of the Pro-Gun Lobby? Hmmmm sorry that mustn't be 'hollywood' enough for you or maybe again you just ignore that.
Since when I do actually follow something that hollywood does? I look I listen I find interesting facts like:
US military goes into training missions EXPECTING casualties not just injuries but FATALITIES. This from personnel supposedly trained to handle weapons (or ARMs) properly. Now take the general populous not given the same level of training or safety knowledge and you have a nasty cocktail.
'Crooks will find away to get weapons no matter what the law says. And actually the US has strict gun control laws, but again, the ones who want to get around them do so, and those who follow the laws are the one who end up having to face more of the same everytime a crook is caught.'
The idea here is that in general a crook will usually get illegally is what others can get legally. So if automatic weapons are suddenly hard to get and they wouldn't normally be able to get semi-automatic because they are not allowed but members of the general populace can then surely enough it would be easy enough for them to get semi-automatic rather than an automatic weapons (of course the case can be argued that a simple modification and the semi-automatic becomes fully automatic which was part of the reason why they were banned here as well).
Oh and if I bought into the Hollywood version of the US populace I would believe that less than 50% would have difficulty finding a country like Australia on the world map (some ten odd years ago a REAL survey showed 60% couldn't even think beyond Australia as a state of the USofA, least of all that Canberra and not Sydney is the capital of the country).
People scream that Iraq can have weapons of mass destruction yet you have a local version of mass destruction in each city/town. I find the double standard laughable. People have the right to bear arms, fine just make it not Auto-matic or Semi-automatic and within certain ranges of calibre and size. You still have your guns just not 'military-grade'.
Greyslayer
|
MadWolf
12/02/02 06:54 PM
134.53.144.37
|
Well heres what I have to say, Should I be able to Own my Springfield OS? Yup, It was my grandpa's and its now mine, He gave it to me and I use it for markmans ship. I think there is nothing wrong with that. There shouldn't be either. I do believe that anyone saying that they need a AK-47 to hunt with is a psyco. I feel that if your aim is that bad that you need an automatic weapon to hunt with that you should not be a damn gun owner. But the main problem is with Pistols. They are easy to hide and they can fire rapidly. Semi-auto's over a .22 are for killing people really. That was there design. A revolver is acceptable though, since the reload time is long and they are rather cumbersome. Gun ownership should be forever preserved, Hell our country was founded on them. But ownership should require education, and there are firearms that cannot be argued are for sport or defense. A semi-auto pistol is used to unload into people. A revolver is of that serious One shot needed to stop whoever feels they can take your right to live peacefully. A rifle is a sport gun, a assult rifle is a machine manufactured under the premis off how to kill more people more effectively. Not to say we can forget the guns that were and are used in war, We just really don't need them for anything. My Springfeild is my connection to my grampa. You would have to kill me to get it. But you would probably have to use a semi-auto .45.
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
|
Spartan
12/02/02 06:57 PM
172.153.234.107
|
"they are capable of multiple deaths in a short period of time compared to their slower loading cousins"
Not true. If you simply fire a weapon you lose your aim. With or with out semi-automatic fire you must take the time to aim, squeeze the trigger, etc. It's not a point and shoot proposition like in the games. I know, I've been shooting since I was 8, starting with a BB gun and moving to rifles, shotguns and pistols. And with practice a shooter can get just as fast with a non semi auto. Besides, who says I need a gun to cause large numbers of deaths in a short period of time? I can do the same thing with relatively common household items.
"If its harder to 'criminals' to get these weapons would it not be better than how easy it currently is?"
It's not a question of legislation, we have very strong gun laws. The criminals simple go around the law and acquire their weapons through other means. Personal example: in high school I had a chance to buy (illegally of course) an MP5. That is a weapon that is already illegal. How did the seller get it? By ignoring the law.
(incidentally, I did not attempt to buy it, it was simple an offer that was made to me that I turned down for a number of reasons, including that I didn't trust the guy making the offer, weapon would have been a lot of trouble being illegal, etc.)
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Greyslayer
12/02/02 07:18 PM
216.14.192.226
|
Give someone and inch and they take a mile.
More than an inch had been given by allowing fully operational automatic weapons legally allowed within the general populace. They can carry weapons that what the infantry might term a double-tap would in fact empty the magazine into the target area.
What would be a reasonable level of self-defence? Enough to stop and possibly kill someone that is trying to break into your house or having the need to call in forensics just to get a dna match on what was left after you dicided he walked on the wrong side of the footpath?
|
Karagin
12/02/02 08:03 PM
68.21.149.248
|
If you say so, I forgot the Anti-Gun group and it's supporters are also the same group who are the PC crowd...
So live in your world, since it's clear that reality isn't something you are dealing with.
End of the discussion for me.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
12/03/02 04:33 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>First of all, if each and every firearm had to be registered:
1) it would be much easier to identify the weapon used in any gun-related incident, providing a good starting point for an investigation, thereby saving time and money on law enforcement
2) the extra charge of "possessing an unregistered firearm" for those get picked up while avoiding registration...useful as a deterrent, among other things
<<<
1) As is the case at present, the firearm used almost undoubtedly didn't belong to the person who fired it, making this basically meaningless.
2) Deterrence doesn't work. Ask a Sociologist.
>>>Second, if certain weapons (assault rifles, rocket launchers, fully automatic weaponry, etc.) were completely outlawed outside the military and other select cases, it would make such items more difficult for Joe Criminal to obtain,<<<
Thus making such items MORE DESIREABLE for Joe Criminal to obtain, as they fetch a higher price on the Black Market.
Banning weapons only serves to keep them out of the hands of those who heed the law. Unarmed victims are easy victims.
>>>I agree that all-out banning of firearms is a bad idea that would cause a drastic backlash, but I see little harm and many advantages to reasonable control and regulation of personal weapons.<<<
The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow us to defend ourselves against the single greatest threat to our Freedom: The United States of America itself. If it's armed better than we are allowed to be, we have a problem.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
12/03/02 04:37 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>They are easy to hide and they can fire rapidly. Semi-auto's over a .22 are for killing people really.<<<
The point of firearms as a military armament IS to kill people.
The Second Amendment does not protect our right to keep and bear hunting equipment, but weapons.
Weapons as clearly intended for killing as the sword.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
12/03/02 04:39 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>What would be a reasonable level of self-defence?<<<
Enough to stop the United States Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy from imposing the Will of the Federal Government upon you.
Which is to say, the sky's the limit.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
12/03/02 04:41 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>The right to bear arms doesn't mean you can bear ANY arms.<<<
Actually, yes it does.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
12/03/02 04:44 AM
4.35.174.250
|
Our right to keep and bear military-grade weapons is PRECISELY what the Second Amendment aims to protect.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
12/03/02 03:45 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'End of the discussion for me.'
Cool, don't let the door hit you in the ar..... at least you and bob both agree on something for once albiet a pathetic right.
'If you say so, I forgot the Anti-Gun group and it's supporters are also the same group who are the PC crowd..'
They are? Cool I've never seen a demographic of the anti-gun group (btw they are against people having ANY guns while I am against military grade hardware) but if you say so it must be oh so true *sarcasm*
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
12/03/02 03:56 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'Weapons as clearly intended for killing as the sword.'
Weapons like swords and knives require greater intent to kill than pistol or rifle. Phsycologists have quite often talked of the 'dis-association' a person with a gun has with the acts they are commiting, essentially there is less connection with you and the victim because a firearm doesn't have to be close to use.
A sword can with training be used to defend yourself from other hand-to-hand weapons so in essence can be used to 'defend your rights' rather than just attack, kill, maim and massacre.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
12/04/02 04:45 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>A sword can with training be used to defend yourself from other hand-to-hand weapons so in essence can be used to 'defend your rights' rather than just attack, kill, maim and massacre.<<<
A sword's purpose is to kill people.
They are DESIGNED to attack, kill, maim, and massacre.
They are also horrifically obsolete.
How are we to defend ourselves against a modern army with SWORDS?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|