01-04-2013, 09:30 PM
I wouldn't just assume that from the quote itself. . . . . maybe if I had the source and could read it all it might come out like that. . . .
Originally Posted by One Brow
but seriously, the only reason the Brits would pass an act that proscribes 'native Indians' from having their own military units is because they are, after all, an occupying imperialist force, right???? I'm sure it was intended to prevent the subjects from learning how to project armed power in their own interests. . . . which really makes it in fact an issue of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms without infringement. . . . .
You really think that's right? I mean, in your dream world, you want some superior nation just lording it over lesser nations?
Last edited by babe; 01-04-2013 at 09:43 PM.
01-04-2013, 09:40 PM
- Rep Power
01-04-2013, 10:28 PM
I think it's time we ditch the Big Bang Theory and endorse the Bigger Bang Theory
01-06-2013, 10:41 AM
01-06-2013, 11:01 AM
Not sure i understand the point of this..... She shot a man with a .38 handgun that she legally bought right?
Originally Posted by Scat
I dont think any gun control measures are being talked about in this thread that say people who can pass a background check should not be able to buy small handguns.
01-06-2013, 01:27 PM
You realize it's possible to fire that revolver just as fast as an "assault weapon?"
Originally Posted by fishonjazz
01-06-2013, 02:40 PM
Seems that she only needed 5 bullets and a small handgun to defend herself..... Im just saying that using that particular example to say there shouldn't be gun control doesn't work.
Originally Posted by Gameface
Most of this thread has been discussing whether or not to restrict magazine capacity or to ban assault rifles, so in this example the woman seemed to do just fine with 5 bullets from a .38
If she had used an assualt rifle with 30 round clips to stop a gang of intruders from getting her, then that would have made sense in regards to supporting scats stance on this issue.
01-06-2013, 05:03 PM
Much of the argument I hear against "assault weapons" is their ability to be fired rapidly. Just making the point that the revolver she had can be fired just as quickly. Many handguns have magazines that hold 16 rounds. The argument to limit magazine capacity is an argument to make the weapon less effective, for any purpose. I oppose that approach.
Originally Posted by fishonjazz
01-06-2013, 06:16 PM
this is purely speculative and a big assumption on my part, but I wonder - - at least in the case of some of these mass shootings and other seemingly random acts of violence - - if the ability to carry around a huge arsenal of high-powered weapons and ammunitions doesn't somehow feed into the pathology of those who commit these types of acts.
I could be completely off-base in my thinking, but I believe that if Adam Lanza or James Holmes only had access to a typical handgun they wouldn't even have contemplated doing what they did. I think the amount and type of weapons and ammunition they had access to fed their delusions.
Like I said, I could be completely wrong - - and there's no way to know, and I don't know what the solution should be at any rate, but it's just my gut feeling.
01-06-2013, 07:47 PM
You know, I don't think you're completely wrong. I owned an AR-15 for a little while. I sold it after a few months because it seemed pretty impractical and I wasn't happy with my ability to shoot it accurately. Having it and holding it it did inspire thoughts of using it valiantly to defend my home from a horde of attackers. That's just straight honesty. Maybe no one else has ever felt that way, but it was the way I felt about it. I got tired of waiting for the zombie apocalypse and figured I could use the money I spent on it better elsewhere.
Originally Posted by moevillini
I just want to say, though. The round these guns fire is a high velocity rifle round, but it isn't especially powerful. So much anti-hype and myth are being spewed from so many sources that it's easy to gain a common understanding of what these guns are that is very false. Many people in the military lament the transition from 7.62mm rounds fired from the M-14 to the 5.56mm used int eh M-16 (AR-15s can often shot both the .223cal and 5.56mm as they are nearly but not completely identical). Part of the reason for the transition was because 5.56mm causes less muzzle rise when fired in a full-auto weapon. Another is because the rounds are smaller and lighter so soldiers can carry more of them. The lore behind the 7.62mm is that it can penetrate a telephone pole and kill a man on the other side. Such is not said of the 5.56mm. The 5.56mm has less force but travels at a higher velocity, therefore it has a flatter trajectory. The higher velocity and smaller diameter also make it more likely to pass through a person when hit. I mentioned it before, but it is advantageous to injure enemies without killing them so that they continue to take up resources. So the 5.56mm round is in part a better round because it is less lethal than it's predecessor. Don't tell that to bad ass tough guys in the military, though. They need the bigger round it seems. They feel the same way about the switch to 9mm rounds in side arms, switching from the legendary .45acp man-stopper.
So, in short, the .223/5.56 round is a mid-powered rifle round. Small diameter, high velocity, low on the total force scale round.
7.62mm vs 5.56mm (AR-15s shoot the 5.56mm/.223cal)
9mm vs .45acp
01-08-2013, 11:27 AM
Alex Jones on the Piers Morgan show. Absolutely classic. He just keeps going at him:
01-08-2013, 11:58 AM
To bad alex helped piers make gun owners and those who support the 2nd seem like a bunch ofconspiracy theory nuts. Unfortunate.
01-08-2013, 12:16 PM
Man, that was a little embarrassing. No need to yell and scream about this when the guy is sitting there trying to have a conversation like a reasonable person.
01-08-2013, 12:19 PM
Alex Jones is not the first person I have heard float the theme of "civil war if you try to take our guns".
Having said that it was very entertaining but Alex Jones did himself a disservice. By being so over the top he guaranteed that he will not be invited back and that limits his visability. Being on CNN was a chance to get his view to people who do not normally hear what he has to say.
Entertaining but he shot himself in the foot so to speak.
01-08-2013, 12:31 PM
That's his whole schtick though. He did basically the same thing when he went on the View to talk about Charlie Sheen awhile back. I'm guessing he just figures that he just going on shows and saying what he wants is better than sitting there and letting Piers Morgan take up all but 2 minutes or something. I definitely brought it up because of the entertainment factor, not because he went on Piers and had a proper debate or anything. You guys are looking at it completely wrong. Think of the type person that can stomach watching an hour of Piers Morgan every night. Probably really stuffy people. So what's the best way to get through to them? Shock and awe baby. And now he's got a viral video to go along with that that is going to go nuts views wise and have a much bigger impact than CNN could ever bring. Win for his websites and businesses, win for his message.
Originally Posted by Stoked