Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
06-16-2016, 02:04 PM
#1423
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
I guess the media figures that if this is a terrorism thing (which it obviously is) the great satan (R) will get a lead over the senator from goldman sachs (D). So they push every angle that could possibly help her avoid a slump in the polls.
Reply
0
0
06-16-2016, 02:30 PM
#1425
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
Cool trigger, bro. I love my Geissle. I can't pronounce the name of it, but I like it.
Is it
-guy-sull
-guys-lee
-guy-suh-lee
-gay-suh-lee
-gay-slee
Apologies if I triggered anyone. Hohoho.
Is it
-guy-sull
-guys-lee
-guy-suh-lee
-gay-suh-lee
-gay-slee
Apologies if I triggered anyone. Hohoho.
Reply
0
0
06-16-2016, 08:10 PM
#1428
Regarding the latest Senate debate... If your on a terrorist watch list, I'm guessing you probably don't know it. But when you are denied the opportunity to buy a gun wouldn't you now know it? I mean wouldn't there need to be a reason given for the denial of the 2nd amendment right. So now the affected "terrorist" would know they're on to him.
Reply
0
0
06-16-2016, 08:19 PM
#1429
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Regarding the latest Senate debate... If your on a terrorist watch list, I'm guessing you probably don't know it. But when you are denied the opportunity to buy a gun wouldn't you now know it? I mean wouldn't there need to be a reason given for the denial of the 2nd amendment right. So now the affected "terrorist" would know they're on to him.
Also, letting terrorists buy guns so we can keep an eye on them is almost literally what this whole mess was about. Seems like conservatives allowing someone on the terrorist watch list to purchase a weapon is a bit of a double standard.
Reply
0
0
06-16-2016, 10:33 PM
#1430
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
It sho ain' no love crime, boo!
There was a period of about 3 years during which I was unable to use either online check-in or kiosk check-in to get my boarding pass for a flight. I had to show up extra early and wait in the "I'm a casual who doesn't understand how air travel works" line, and get my boarding pass from a human. This was extremely annoying, as it happened during a phase in my life in which I was getting on an airplane about once a week, on average. And, puzzlingly, it only affected about 2/3 of airlines. Through trial and error, I learned to only ever book on Delta, United, Continental, and Frontier.
No airline employee ever said to me "Your name* is on a government watch list", or even admitted that such a list existed, but of course it wasn't hard to figure out.
That state of grace lasted for about six years.
Regarding the latest Senate debate... If your on a terrorist watch list, I'm guessing you probably don't know it. But when you are denied the opportunity to buy a gun wouldn't you now know it? I mean wouldn't there need to be a reason given for the denial of the 2nd amendment right. So now the affected "terrorist" would know they're on to him.
No airline employee ever said to me "Your name* is on a government watch list", or even admitted that such a list existed, but of course it wasn't hard to figure out.
* = Mind you, "Jose Perez" is the Hispanic equivalent of "John Smith." There are a hell of a lot of us, and so it stands to reason that at least one of them has done something stupid.
Which sucked, really. Prior to 9/11, as a young Hispanic male flying on a one-way ticket purchased the day before, I always seemed to receive special attention at all phases of the checkin and boarding process. After 9/11, it was like a magical transformation. Suddenly, I no longer fit the profile! "Hispanic? Traveling on short notice? Lots of hard-sided checkin luggage? Ah, **** it- he's probably just smuggling drugs, endangered animals and stolen **** gold. Nothing you could hijack a plane with."That state of grace lasted for about six years.
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 02:24 AM
#1432
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
That's very clever, but it's wrong. The founding fathers wanted individual citizens to be as heavily armed as soldiers, and they were familiar with the concept of rapid firing weapons. To wit:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche ***
Back then, individuals owned warships, cannons and various weapons that were pretty close to machine guns. They didn't have fixed cartridges back then, but at the time of the second amendment's writing, they had the puckle gun, the belton flintlock and various volley guns. All of these were well known to the founders because they had just fought a war against the UK and were familiar with the state of the art in firearms. Organ guns were the retarded medieval ancestor of the modern machine gun and predate the 2nd amendment by several centuries. Keep in mind that US rifles (ie, rifled long arms as opposed to smoothbore muskets in common use by armies of the time) were the most rapid firing and accurate weapons on the planet and they were widely owned by US citizens. When you consider that colonial era citizens were better armed than the british army, how is it conceivable that the founders didn't contemplate ordinary US citizens owning the same or better weapons than the average rifleman in the marines or army?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche ***
Back then, individuals owned warships, cannons and various weapons that were pretty close to machine guns. They didn't have fixed cartridges back then, but at the time of the second amendment's writing, they had the puckle gun, the belton flintlock and various volley guns. All of these were well known to the founders because they had just fought a war against the UK and were familiar with the state of the art in firearms. Organ guns were the retarded medieval ancestor of the modern machine gun and predate the 2nd amendment by several centuries. Keep in mind that US rifles (ie, rifled long arms as opposed to smoothbore muskets in common use by armies of the time) were the most rapid firing and accurate weapons on the planet and they were widely owned by US citizens. When you consider that colonial era citizens were better armed than the british army, how is it conceivable that the founders didn't contemplate ordinary US citizens owning the same or better weapons than the average rifleman in the marines or army?
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 02:44 AM
#1434
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
Yeah, the terror watch list is straight up bullshit. You can get put on it for badmouthing the TSA. Good luck getting off it if you aren't famous or politically connected.
The real problem here is that the FBI's number one concern is "don't get accused of islamophobia." The Orlando attack guy seemingly couldn't talk about anything except murdering infidels. Everyone that met the guy seems to have ended up reporting him to his employers and the FBI because he was so obviously nutty and dangerous. Even the first few gun stores seemed to have turned him down and called cops because he was obviously up to no good. The FBI investigated this guy 3 ******* times because of all the complaints. Martha Stewart got sent to federal prison after a quick conversation despite not having committed an actual crime (she was charged with a false statement, king of the chickenshit charges) but they couldn't find anything to pin on this ******* after three interrogations and several years of surveillance? They weren't ******* trying.
The real problem here is that the FBI's number one concern is "don't get accused of islamophobia." The Orlando attack guy seemingly couldn't talk about anything except murdering infidels. Everyone that met the guy seems to have ended up reporting him to his employers and the FBI because he was so obviously nutty and dangerous. Even the first few gun stores seemed to have turned him down and called cops because he was obviously up to no good. The FBI investigated this guy 3 ******* times because of all the complaints. Martha Stewart got sent to federal prison after a quick conversation despite not having committed an actual crime (she was charged with a false statement, king of the chickenshit charges) but they couldn't find anything to pin on this ******* after three interrogations and several years of surveillance? They weren't ******* trying.
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 09:29 AM
#1435
That's very clever, but it's wrong. The founding fathers wanted individual citizens to be as heavily armed as soldiers, and they were familiar with the concept of rapid firing weapons. To wit:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche ***
Back then, individuals owned warships, cannons and various weapons that were pretty close to machine guns. They didn't have fixed cartridges back then, but at the time of the second amendment's writing, they had the puckle gun, the belton flintlock and various volley guns. All of these were well known to the founders because they had just fought a war against the UK and were familiar with the state of the art in firearms. Organ guns were the retarded medieval ancestor of the modern machine gun and predate the 2nd amendment by several centuries. Keep in mind that US rifles (ie, rifled long arms as opposed to smoothbore muskets in common use by armies of the time) were the most rapid firing and accurate weapons on the planet and they were widely owned by US citizens. When you consider that colonial era citizens were better armed than the british army, how is it conceivable that the founders didn't contemplate ordinary US citizens owning the same or better weapons than the average rifleman in the marines or army?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche ***
Back then, individuals owned warships, cannons and various weapons that were pretty close to machine guns. They didn't have fixed cartridges back then, but at the time of the second amendment's writing, they had the puckle gun, the belton flintlock and various volley guns. All of these were well known to the founders because they had just fought a war against the UK and were familiar with the state of the art in firearms. Organ guns were the retarded medieval ancestor of the modern machine gun and predate the 2nd amendment by several centuries. Keep in mind that US rifles (ie, rifled long arms as opposed to smoothbore muskets in common use by armies of the time) were the most rapid firing and accurate weapons on the planet and they were widely owned by US citizens. When you consider that colonial era citizens were better armed than the british army, how is it conceivable that the founders didn't contemplate ordinary US citizens owning the same or better weapons than the average rifleman in the marines or army?
I guess, to my original post, the reason that would be given to deny a gun purchase would be "Federally Denied Persons File" which seems to be the catch all.
Funny, this wouldn't have stopped the Orlando shootings. The guy was a legitimate citizen and his prior placement on the no fly list was cleared by the FBI.
So the only difference between Omar Mateen (Muslim) and Timothy McVeigh (Roman Catholic) was religion and method used.
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 09:34 AM
#1436
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
I think you guys are missing the point of the image I posted. It illustrates the same retort being used against completely opposite claims, by people with extremist opinions at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Eg: it's ironic.
Eg: it's ironic.
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 09:58 AM
#1438
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
It wasn't "just one founding father." I gave one quote that illustrates the general sentiment of the times. The founding fathers disagreed as to methods for upkeep and training of the militia, but none of them had the modern sort of disagreements about whether everyone should be armed.
There was disagreement about the extent of training that congress should require of the militia (a power congress has over the militia from Article I). Hamilton believed that constantly training them (marching in formation, doing firing drills, etc) would be a pain in everyone's *** and that they should only require them to be armed and nothing else. A few people thought that congress shouldn't have been given the power to discipline the militia at all (because it could be subject to abuse) but even those people agreed everyone should be fully armed as if they were soldiers.
The modern conception of gun control came into being during the late 60s. Before 68, you could mail order nearly anything, including anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers and artillery. Machine guns in private hands didn't even become rare until the 90s, when the supply began drying up after the 86 ban. You could still buy submachine guns for a few hundred bucks back then. After the race riots in 68 (MLK got capped, everyone lost their minds, etc), a lot of places like NY and CA decided they needed a way to clamp down on firearm ownership by blacks and the rest is history. That's where we got the modern record keeping requirements (though the ammo record keeping requirement is gone), the FFL system and all the bans on interstate transfers. Places like NYC didn't like that blacks could just mail order something like a garand for 50 bucks without paying any heed to local rules. Obviously, it's a lot harder to abuse people when they can send a bunch of 30-06 your way.
There was disagreement about the extent of training that congress should require of the militia (a power congress has over the militia from Article I). Hamilton believed that constantly training them (marching in formation, doing firing drills, etc) would be a pain in everyone's *** and that they should only require them to be armed and nothing else. A few people thought that congress shouldn't have been given the power to discipline the militia at all (because it could be subject to abuse) but even those people agreed everyone should be fully armed as if they were soldiers.
The modern conception of gun control came into being during the late 60s. Before 68, you could mail order nearly anything, including anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers and artillery. Machine guns in private hands didn't even become rare until the 90s, when the supply began drying up after the 86 ban. You could still buy submachine guns for a few hundred bucks back then. After the race riots in 68 (MLK got capped, everyone lost their minds, etc), a lot of places like NY and CA decided they needed a way to clamp down on firearm ownership by blacks and the rest is history. That's where we got the modern record keeping requirements (though the ammo record keeping requirement is gone), the FFL system and all the bans on interstate transfers. Places like NYC didn't like that blacks could just mail order something like a garand for 50 bucks without paying any heed to local rules. Obviously, it's a lot harder to abuse people when they can send a bunch of 30-06 your way.
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 09:59 AM
#1439
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
The term "terrorist" hadn't yet come into common use in the English language at the time of the American revolution. They'd likely have been referred to as traitors, in the sense of "one who commits treason."
Reply
0
0
06-17-2016, 10:47 AM
#1440
I love all the Youtube clips where a video crew goes to colleges and ask random questions of people walking in the quad... really hard questions too, like "Who did we fight in the Revolutionary War?" and "Who won the Civil War?" and "Who is the current Vice President?"
Reply
0
0
