“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

a reply to: starheart More likely than bats and machetes would be they start using the previous ranged weapons. the bow.

originally posted by: starheart
Say so a pro-gun website, who has everything to gain by writing that King, the most pacifist man of our time, had in fact loads of guns.

You are as clueless of American media as you are firearms if you think that National Public Radio is anything but a liberal organization.

Regardless, Dr. King owned firearms, applied for a concealed carry permit and advocated their use in defense of one's rights.

It seems crazy to me why Americans here bang on about the second amendment, how they need their guns to protect them from a rogue or runaway Government. The constitution has been under attack for years, it has been watered down so much with executive orders and the patriot act it has become meaningless. Every time we hear of another executive order, or how the NSA is making a mockery of the bill of rights with their snooping of emails and phones. Americans either shrug their shoulders, or come on sites like this one to moan and whine for a while, then it is all forgot about until the next executive order. America will always require a villan such as Al Qaida, Russia, North Korea, Iran, amongst others to give the people a sense of patriotism. Iraq and Afghanistan have dampened that enthusiasim to rally behing the star spangled banner, while many around the world would consider that many Americans try to look through their star spangled blindfold.

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: swanne
Take away the guns and crazy people will still kill large numbers of people. They'll go "Grand Theft Auto" with cars, or they'll make deadly homemade explosives from H2O2. They'll use machetes. They'll use anything that can kill large quantities of people, and the possibilities are endless. So, take away the guns and crazies can still commit mass murder, and we will be vulnerable to the very real threat of government (again, both foreign and domestic). And history proves that threat to be deadlier, more widespread, and more frequent than anything the crazies do.

At least we'll be taking the biggest weapon off the street. Bats and machetes are easy to counter; not a bullet that does 300m/s. There's a reason why big wars in the Dark Ages didn't made even 1 million of deaths. Hard to do a mass-killing with a bat or a knife. And the government could've killed anyone in one shot had they wanted to do so; and since decades. Don't you want to stop and wonder why?

Giving big guns with more than 4 shots (to allow hunting to continue) to every citizens will be the worse thing that can ever happen. It will be like giving C4 to every rebelling teenager in school.

What "big guns" are you talking about?Do you even know what you are talking about?Are you talking about African big game rifles?
So,millions of deaths were not possible without guns?Never heard of Temujin?


"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Mahatma Gandhi

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...



You amaze me,you sound young,immature and from anywhere but the U.S.

a reply to: swanne

You DO understand the difference between an "Automatic" and a "Semi Automatic" right?

I mean you certainly pretend to have all the answers, so I at least hope you understand the difference between the two. They are NOT interchangeable. If you don't know the difference, you have no business pontificating on things you don't understand.

Frankly from your speech, I have a feeling you don't know the difference.

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: swanne

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Why?

Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.

It doesn't mean that we should allow automated guns in the hands of civilians. Not because there wouldn't be a civil war means that we should justify owning a MK-47. Because then, what are you using it against? Burglars?? Because that's what people thinks. That they need a MK-47 against burglars. And they're growing in numbers.

What is an "automated gun"? And what is an MK-47?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: chopperswolf

Or maybe, if this gang didn't have guns in the first place, or at worst had only a one-shot gun, life wouldn't be a "who has more guns than who" pissing contest.

Here in Canada guns are a privilege (not a right). Yet we live a normal life. Why do you americans have to be so obsessed with weapons?

I think you are taking things too literally, being silly, or completely clueless as to the situation with firearm ownership in the U.S.

First off you have to be of legal age to purchase a fire arm, and if under that age you must be with a person of legal age. You may or may not have to have passed a hunters education coarse, although I have never seen that enforced in the fields while hunting as a child. Second you cannot have committed a felony, or a violent crime. In some cases you can't legally own a hand gun if you even have a misdemeanor drug charge on your record. And lastly I am certain that statistics would show that due to some assanine laws in some states,as well as people that just aren't interested in shooting; The majority of fire arms are held by a smaller % of people than actually own a fire arm at all.

We as a collective nation aren't gun crazy what so ever. A % of people however love shooting as a hobby, to kill food, to protect ourselves, our families, and our property; And a certain percentage love preserving our way of life and upholding the spirit of OUR constitution.

Not everyone in the U.S.A. has a "right" to bear arms. And you watch way too many movies and too many t.v. shows, as well as reading terribly biased news reports. In effect, you have been brain washed to believe that guns are evil.

Well except for your 1 shot, super accurate, magical wound but not kill but wound in a way that the attacker agrees to give up attacking guns.

a reply to: sputniksteve
I tend to laugh at the "less rounds means less deadly" crowd.
they just don't understand that less capacity means a person has to be more skilled to effectively operate the firearm.
Also they seem to think that if everyone had a 1 shot gun they would never practice and become more accurate with them.

a reply to: swanne

one of the worse articles ever

1) machine guns and yes, even bazookas are legal...........with the right type of license. A little pricey, but you can in fact have anything including flamethrowers, grenade launchers, cannons, tanks, miniguns, etc

2) your arguments against the usefulness of differing classes of weapons are simplistic and unimaginative based on an apparent lack of understanding of how weapons work, military strategy, or general human psychology.

3) 2nd amendment is more about protection from government tyranny than crime prevention. It is unlikely the mention of a militia was in reference to apprehending shoplifters.

4) the US was pro gun from way before you were born, so why should it be expected to change just to suit you or any of the other johnny come latelies? if you are uncomfortable with the idea of weapons, there are plenty of places that offer various levels of banning that may fit your needs or level of insecurity. england, canada, australia, china, north korea. with so many options already available, why so much effort to change one of the few places that offer the low cost, high availability, pro-armed alternative?

5) why do you expect one side to unilaterally disarm at a time when the opposition is in overdrive fielding nearly incalculable numbers of MRAPS, drones, ammo stockpiling etc. If all those civilian arms were really so useless, then why the massive arms race? somebody in government takes them seriously.

6) and yes, its only a matter of time before some terrorists run a mumbai in the states. you know, the same ones started by the cia so many years ago, then you'll see your dreams come true as the anti gunners try and get their way. the past ten years have been about trying to set the stage for that.

7) back in the day, government often lacked funds for raising and equipping soldiers. it was very common place, and often seen as trendy, for wealthy private individuals to raise and equip units of men, which they would promptly pick whatever arbitrary rank to assign themselves. included in the various arms including ships, cannons, bombs, and all the explosives you could afford. a hundred pounds of powder and bands of armed men running around was pretty much as deadly back then as it is today. but yet they almost never ran amok causing mayhem? ask yourself why is that?

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

The fact is, some people really honestly have absolutely no idea what so ever, what they are talking about. It's maybe not their fault, they weren't brought up shooting guns, they were told by their parents they were dangerous, they grew up in a major city with no facilities or land to shoot, etc.

But an adult that want's to lecture people on the subject is just plain irresponsible and to be blunt, ignorant to not learn the basics of what it is they think they now more than anyone else about. To be honest, it really pisses me off to be told so many blatantly incorrect things by someone that has never shot a gun how I,who have been shooting for 30+ years and have never harmed a single person, need to behave and comply.

Makes me furious.

a reply to: sputniksteve

I couldnt have said it better

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: swanne

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Why?

Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.

It doesn't mean that we should allow automated guns in the hands of civilians. Not because there wouldn't be a civil war means that we should justify owning a MK-47. Because then, what are you using it against? Burglars?? Because that's what people thinks. That they need a MK-47 against burglars. And they're growing in numbers.

What is an "automated gun"? And what is an MK-47?

I think it is a gun that has artificial intelligence and I think a MK-47 is some kind of jumbo jet!There,I hope that settles that question!

a reply to: one4all
Thank you for your theory but we vets have SPECIAL FORCES personnel who will guide us in such troubled times .It's what they have done all over the world with FAR less capable trainees.
Yes like you I think there was a coup but short of slaughtering a great deal of people we can't initiate a civil war AT ALL. they call those folks 'MASS SHOOTERS and use them to scare the kids when they take out a few people in a school.
Those of us who know what we are DOING with such tools thankfully have noted the incompetence in the use of the guns. Fortunately considering population it is very few. We will be arming schools to stop them from doing that.
That may make OTHER countries cry and fold so their firearms and thus effective means of enhanced defenses have been taken.
But we don't fall to such adversity come what may,hell WE went to war to possibly DIE .
Whackballs don't scare us.

a reply to: starheart
Ghandi wasn't a total pacifist
www.mkgandhi.org...
I can usually back down 99% of the casual bullies I meet by talking. If I can I got a hell of a plan "B".

Dr King was normal guy who spoke on behalf of the black folks to defy the red necks and yes he did have a temper,guns and alot of other things normal people have.His mind and heart were bigger than ALL of it.
Unfortunately the black folks are screwing up lately and fathers are absent,not that it is JUST a spacific color we are talking here on THAT issue. Broken KIDS not guns, excessive prescribing of Psychotropic substance that PHYSICIANS are NOT qualified to determine( DIRECT experience with an incident) can cause a person to kill. So can a person who thinks THEIR superior economic status trumps ANY social responsibility or law. I stay home and draw and paint my guns have dust in their barrels. I am no threat and NO ONE better threaten me or mine. So NONE of this will occur in Australia GERMANICUS

Ok, colour me confused. Why do you keep mentioning tanks and apc as weapons? They are just vehicles, no more dangerous, or any less so, than a gmc. Heck, I play with the idea of buying an ot-64 (polish variant of the BTR 80). List price is only $9500.
Tempting, very tempting. And much more fun in the woods than a 4wd.
As for flamethrowers, even the batf dosent consider them as weapons. A quick search online will bring up two or three places that make them, and the us postal service will even ship.it to your residence. Gonna order one in hot pink for my lady love so she'll leave my surplus one alone.
(She never resets the valves)

a reply to: sputniksteve

You do understand the difference between a gun and a tank, right?

Because alot of people here assume that the second amendment means every households should not only have guns, but also tanks, and bazookas, and jet fighters, and bomb.

And this is the topic at hand.

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to: Sunwolf

On the other hand,I dare you to show me one time in the whole of history where leftist ideology led to utopia.

No problemo. For your information, it is not leftist ideology, but pacifist.

I present to you... Gandhi:

He brought peacefully the independence of India.

And, I also present to you... Martin Luther King Jr.:


As for this "coward", as you guys call all pacifists, he brought peacefully the freedom of African Americans.

Pray tell me if you still think that non-violence doesn't solve conflicts, even extreme ones. If you still think so, then there's nothing left to debate upon. Your mind is set upon violence.

(It wasn't Dr. King, it was the old generation Republicans that got that going when Lincoln was chopping logs in Springfield Illinois.)

I sure wish you could convince Obama that he doesn't need to be violent to solve problems. Hundreds of dead children he killed with drones would have pleaded for you (or me, or anyone), to do that as well.
And once he gets all the guns from Americans, I wonder just how peaceful he would be?

For those who wonder, yes, I know what is a semi-automatic and an automatic. With a semi-automatic, each pull of trigger shoot 1 bullet only; even if you hold the trigger, only 1 bullet gets shot. An automatic is that x number of bullets get shot depending on the amount of time you hold the trigger. BASICALLY, I am not going into technically accurate details. Now, may I start showing my point?

Okay, here is the numbers, because you guys don't seem to understand.

You have a Remington 870, with 3-8 rounds. Versus, an AK-47, with 20-75 rounds.

The Remington 870 is pump-action (you have to pump each time before shooting a bullet; it's the recharge mode. You try to shoot without pumping, nothing happens); the AK-47 is a selective trigger, for you can either set it as a semi-automatic or an automatic trigger mode.

The Remington 870 is a manual recharge. For those who gets confused, that means that you have to manually take the rounds out of the box, and insert them one by one in the Remington. The AK-47 comes, at its most basic, with a 20-rounds magazine (you then have the choice to have a 30-rounds, 40-rounds, or 75-rounds magazine). For you confused guys, that means that all your 20 bullets comes in an already packed casing (magazine) that you then attach (and detach when empty) to your gun.

What does that mean? That means that a crazy teenage who wants to do a mass killing in a school with an AK-47 (the gun all you guys want dearly) can shoot 20 bullets, eject his magazine, put another 20-rounds magazine (if he was crazy and clever enough to bring backup magazines) and shoot another 20 bullets. Not only that, but he can set the AK-47 as an automatic mode, and shoot those 20 bullets in less than 3 seconds (an AK-47 shoots 600 rounds per minutes in an automatic mode).

To imagine the resulting effect, take a point in you room, and calculate 3 seconds from that point to another. Then cover the resulting distance by counting 20 bullets. That damage is what a teenager can accomplish with an AK-47. Then, you're not finished, because in less than 5 seconds, he ejected his empty magazine and replaced it with another 20-round, and it starts all over again. No time to disarm him, no time to evacuate the kids.

Now give a Remington 870 with 8 rounds to a teenager about to mass-kill a schoolyard. Each time he pumps, people has the chance to duck or get out of the way. Even if they can't, here's the resulting damage: 8 bullets, instead of 20.
But it is the recharging that actually makes the difference. Because now, with the Remington 870, the crazy teenager has to recharge manually, one bullet at a time, his gun. It's not a magazine he just plugs in. It's 8 separate bullets that he has to add manually in his gun. Add to the fact that he'll probably be agitated and nervous, and he might drop some rounds. That leaves plenty of time to disarm him, and most of all, to evacuate the scene.

See what I mean?

Nothing is wrong, if you really insist on solving things with guns and violence, to let pump-action guns with rounds below 10 (in hunting, the average rounds in your gun is 4 or 6) legal for hunting or self-defense.
But it is completely insane to let assault rifle with magazines of 20, 30, 40, or 75 rounds legal. The amount of time to recharge is more considerable with a Remington (which is what you want when a criminal uses a gun) than with an AK (which only profit the criminal), and that is why soldiers or agents don't use manual recharge guns but guns using magazines; they have to be able to fire almost non-stop.



Finally, here are the numbers of what would happen if you would take away all assault rifles (I said assault rifles, not hunting guns) and replace them with bows and crossbows, and do a mass-killing, as some members are scared that will happen.

AK-47 assault rifle:

- Takes, in average, 4 pounds to pull the trigger
- In automatic mode (which you have the constant option), fires 600 rounds per minutes (10 per second)
- Bullets travel at 715m/s
- It is accurate at 440 yard.

Average Compound Bow:

- Takes, in average, 50-60 pounds to draw.
- You have to maintain that 50-60 pounds while you draw up to 28-30 inches (more time elapse, more people can be evacuated, and more people can disarm you)
- It takes, in average, 12 pounds to maintain the bow drawn.
- You have to manually load an arrow each time you shoot (even more time elapse, more people can be evacuated, and more people can take the chance to disarm you).
- Arrows travel, in average, between 46-113m/s
- It is accurate, depending how good you are, at 50-200 yard.
- Also, high-performance bows can take up to 150 pounds to draw.

Finally, Average Crossbow:

- Takes, in average, 60 pounds to draw back the string
- You have to manually load each arrow, and draw back the string
- Arrows travel, in average, 75m/s
- It is accurate, in average, at 40 yard
- Also high-performance crossbows can take up to 150-180 pounds to draw.


See how much less damage a bow or a crossbow is capable to doing, unlike an AK-47. See also how longer and stronger it takes to load and draw a bow/crossbow, unlike how fast and easy it is to load a magazine and pull the trigger.

You want to be safe. Take the big assault guns out of the street. Criminals with bows and crossbows won't be able to attack much people when they have to manually load each arrows and use 60 pounds to draw.

I also notice that you have conveniently breezed over this quote:

I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem. And in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice.... [U]rging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief."

You do love to concentrate on all the pro-violence quotes, but you ignore all the non-violence ones. It tell people much about your true personality and nature.

originally posted by: starheart
For those who wonder, yes, I know what is a semi-automatic and an automatic. With a semi-automatic, each pull of trigger shoot 1 bullet only; even if you hold the trigger, only 1 bullet gets shot. An automatic is that x number of bullets get shot depending on the amount of time you hold the trigger. BASICALLY, I am not going into technically accurate details. Now, may I start showing my point?

Okay, here is the numbers, because you guys don't seem to understand.

You have a Remington 870, with 3-8 rounds. Versus, an AK-47, with 20-75 rounds.

The Remington 870 is pump-action (you have to pump each time before shooting a bullet; it's the recharge mode. You try to shoot without pumping, nothing happens); the AK-47 is a selective trigger, for you can either set it as a semi-automatic or an automatic trigger mode.

The Remington 870 is a manual recharge. For those who gets confused, that means that you have to manually take the rounds out of the box, and insert them one by one in the Remington. The AK-47 comes, at its most basic, with a 20-rounds magazine (you then have the choice to have a 30-rounds, 40-rounds, or 75-rounds magazine). For you confused guys, that means that all your 20 bullets comes in an already packed casing (magazine) that you then attach (and detach when empty) to your gun.

What does that mean? That means that a crazy teenage who wants to do a mass killing in a school with an AK-47 (the gun all you guys want dearly) can shoot 20 bullets, eject his magazine, put another 20-rounds magazine (if he was crazy and clever enough to bring backup magazines) and shoot another 20 bullets. Not only that, but he can set the AK-47 as an automatic mode, and shoot those 20 bullets in less than 3 seconds (an AK-47 shoots 600 rounds per minutes in an automatic mode).

To imagine the resulting effect, take a point in you room, and calculate 3 seconds from that point to another. Then cover the resulting distance by counting 20 bullets. That damage is what a teenager can accomplish with an AK-47. Then, you're not finished, because in less than 5 seconds, he ejected his empty magazine and replaced it with another 20-round, and it starts all over again. No time to disarm him, no time to evacuate the kids.

Now give a Remington 870 with 8 rounds to a teenager about to mass-kill a schoolyard. Each time he pumps, people has the chance to duck or get out of the way. Even if they can't, here's the resulting damage: 8 bullets, instead of 20.
But it is the recharging that actually makes the difference. Because now, with the Remington 870, the crazy teenager has to recharge manually, one bullet at a time, his gun. It's not a magazine he just plugs in. It's 8 separate bullets that he has to add manually in his gun. Add to the fact that he'll probably be agitated and nervous, and he might drop some rounds. That leaves plenty of time to disarm him, and most of all, to evacuate the scene.

See what I mean?

Nothing is wrong, if you really insist on solving things with guns and violence, to let pump-action guns with rounds below 10 (in hunting, the average rounds in your gun is 4 or 6) legal for hunting or self-defense.
But it is completely insane to let assault rifle with magazines of 20, 30, 40, or 75 rounds legal. The amount of time to recharge is more considerable with a Remington (which is what you want when a criminal uses a gun) than with an AK (which only profit the criminal), and that is why soldiers or agents don't use manual recharge guns but guns using magazines; they have to be able to fire almost non-stop.



Finally, here are the numbers of what would happen if you would take away all assault rifles (I said assault rifles, not hunting guns) and replace them with bows and crossbows, and do a mass-killing, as some members are scared that will happen.

AK-47 assault rifle:

- Takes, in average, 4 pounds to pull the trigger
- In automatic mode (which you have the constant option), fires 600 rounds per minutes (10 per second)
- Bullets travel at 715m/s
- It is accurate at 440 yard.

Average Compound Bow:

- Takes, in average, 50-60 pounds to draw.
- You have to maintain that 50-60 pounds while you draw up to 28-30 inches (more time elapse, more people can be evacuated, and more people can disarm you)
- It takes, in average, 12 pounds to maintain the bow drawn.
- You have to manually load an arrow each time you shoot (even more time elapse, more people can be evacuated, and more people can take the chance to disarm you).
- Arrows travel, in average, between 46-113m/s
- It is accurate, depending how good you are, at 50-200 yard.
- Also, high-performance bows can take up to 150 pounds to draw.

Finally, Average Crossbow:

- Takes, in average, 60 pounds to draw back the string
- You have to manually load each arrow, and draw back the string
- Arrows travel, in average, 75m/s
- It is accurate, in average, at 40 yard
- Also high-performance crossbows can take up to 150-180 pounds to draw.


See how much less damage a bow or a crossbow is capable to doing, unlike an AK-47. See also how longer and stronger it takes to load and draw a bow/crossbow, unlike how fast and easy it is to load a magazine and pull the trigger.

You want to be safe. Take the big assault guns out of the street. Criminals with bows and crossbows won't be able to attack much people when they have to manually load each arrows and use 60 pounds to draw.

Get back into search and study shotguns again.Each shotshell(or bullet as you call it) sends out 9 to 200 pellets depending on the choice of shot size.So your analogy is not correct.Keep studying,maybe one day you will get it.
Whatever happened to the MK47 and the automated gun?