RE: The US and guns

RE: The US and guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

KenDckey -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 8:56:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Ken - thats the beauty of a machine gun though! You dont need to be good with it - youre bound to hit something and it makes such a lot of noise! Its also why I'd need an old trailer about 20 yards away - so I couldnt miss! E ROFLMAO well at 20 yards maybe I could hit it once in a while Ever think about graduating to Rockets?

sissifytoserve -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 9:40:34 AM)
Why the USA will NEVER be like England when it comes to guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lREbO6tBLC0

KenDckey -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 10:01:23 AM)
Naw This is why (my son and grandson) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHRn63HB7as

TahoeSadist -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 10:31:55 AM)
Full auto's are interesting, some of them anyway. Just feeding them is a tad pricey. Still and all, there are a couple I would love to own, a Thompson for one and either an MG34 or 42 (best would be a Swedish Browning chambered in 6.5x55, but I don't know if any ever made it into civilian hands). Even though it sorta violates the rule that I wish I had coined (but must settle for stealing): "Only accurate guns are interesting" Eric

wild1cfl -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 10:41:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen ...... and just to add. I think if you asked Americans about their politics, you'd be as likely to find the same proportion of Democrats as Republicans support gun ownership, as well as oppose it. E Now now LE just cause he started out asking about our facination and changes his mind doesn't mean that we are to be equally divided. Just shows he wasn't interested in the first place, Looks more like he was just rabble rowsing LOL Plus that we have sufficiently hijacked this thread anyway LOL

wild1cfl -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 10:44:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TahoeSadist Full auto's are interesting, some of them anyway. Just feeding them is a tad pricey. Still and all, there are a couple I would love to own, a Thompson for one and either an MG34 or 42 (best would be a Swedish Browning chambered in 6.5x55, but I don't know if any ever made it into civilian hands). Even though it sorta violates the rule that I wish I had coined (but must settle for stealing): "Only accurate guns are interesting" Eric Definitely have had a lot of fun shooting a Thompson and an MG42. The 42 really burns up the ammo fast. Now my all time favorite was loading, aiming and firing the 75mm on a fully restored Sherman tank, next best thing to an orgasm LOL

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 11:00:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is the fascination with guns in the US? Now I know it's in the constituion but wasn't that written in 1776 when there was about 826 people living in the US and the arms referred to were flintlock muskets that required about 13 steps to fire - in other words, by the time it was fired you could have swerved the thing. These things weren't exactly .70mm hand howitzers with an infra red scope and armour-piercing bullets. If the answer is that Americans needed to arm themselves 225 years ago in a war with Britain don't worry about it, there's no way we're going to pull that shit again, we can't even run a bath anymore let alone a military campaign. Surely it would be better to have a pub on every corner rather than a gun shop? After all, if you want filling with shots, better to be vodka than bullets. Or even swap licencing laws so we can get a beer after 12 at night but you can't get a gun after 12 night - might save a few lives. So what is the attraction of owning guns? Sorryz I thought fasinations was your choice of words Look up Ken, it was my choice of word. The point I was making is that it was the wrong choice of word by me. The reason being the image that fascination conjures in my mind is one of raw enthusiasm. My mistake. Sometimes people type/write/speak without giving the issue the required thought and thus, as said, political prejudice masks what is really on the person's mind. My genuine intention was to ask why the power? why the symbolism? why is it something that Americans feel so strongly about? As said, fascination was the wrong choice of word.

Kaledorus -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 12:10:26 PM)
Some folks think that unless and until the people wake up to their inherent sovereignty the government will stomp on you, just as it did at Randy Weaver's home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho or at Mt. Carmel in Waco, Texas.

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 12:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve Why the USA will NEVER be like England when it comes to guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lREbO6tBLC0 sissify, I take the point of your man in the link that the average British person gets a raw deal from the Government. I wholeheartedly agree. However, it is fair to say that the US Government is also on the take. They're milking it. How will you ever change this by sitting in the house with a gun waiting to defend yourself? Why would the Government attack you when they have what they want? i.e. more money than they could ever hope to spend - they'll just sit there and preserve the status quo. I'll put a question and a statement to you: Statement - if you sit back and let them get away with it then you're in exactly the same position we are and all the rhetoric about the constitution/rights is simply rhetoric. Question - surely it is far better to change the people in Government than try and keep the Government at bay with a gun? edited for a typo

subfever -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 12:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent However, it is fair to say that the US Government is also on the take. They're milking it. Of course they are. Although in this context, I prefer to say "the powers that be and their operatives" ... not the government. quote: How will you ever change this by sitting in the house with a gun waiting to defend yourself? You won't. quote: Why would the Government attack you when they have what they want? They wouldn't. They will only attack you if you're perceived as being a threat. quote: i.e. more money than they could ever hope to spend - they'll just sit there and preserve the status quo. Oh, I wouldn't go that far. You can bet your booty that they are working to expand their power base and agendas.

Pulpsmack -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 3:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac That must be why the IRA had such trouble blowing shit up. Compare that with the sniper who terrorised Gas staions a few years ago in the US. A terrorist cell could equip 20 snipers with legal weapons and send them out in modified vehicles and cause total panic in the US and would need access to relatively little funding. In the UK simply being seen with a weapon in you car would arrose suspicion. Your ignorance on the matter shows. The DC sniper saga occured in one of the MOST RESTRICTIVE areas of our country. Weapons cannot be transported there unless unloaded and out of sight in a locked box. Anybody seeing someone in a car with that rifle would have called the police on a cell phone immediately, especially in that area. The snipers actually rigged the trunk so that the shooter would lie in wait there and take his shots through a hole in the trunk. As soon as the attack was made, the driver would then take off immediately. Also as crappy correctly pointed out, while the weapon (an illegally obtained Bushmaster AR-15) was modeled after the M-16 used in the military, it was a dreadfully ineffective weapon for the job. Any bolt action rifle in .308 or other "sportsman" style weapon considered orthodox for deer hunting would have been a much better and more effective weapon. Since suspicion would be equally aroused in both areas your point makes no sense. If a terrorist cell wished to do the same upon England, what makes you think it couldn't be done? England couldn't do anything about the IRA.

sissifytoserve -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 4:13:09 PM)
You have to wonder if those two DC snipers were two MK_ULTRA...mind controlled,PROGRAMED victims ready to kill at the first trigger word.

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 4:43:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent sissify, I take the point of your man in the link that the average British person gets a raw deal from the Government. I wholeheartedly agree. Statement - if you sit back and let them get away with it then you're in exactly the same position we are and all the rhetoric about the constitution/rights is simply rhetoric. Question - surely it is far better to change the people in Government than try and keep the Government at bay with a gun? Oh come on NG. The average Brit has a living on par with the average western European and American and all have similar rights with a few cultural variations. Milking the rich won't make a deal of difference. But your point about what the difference being sat at home with a gun waiting to defend yourself against a government is going to make is pertinent, especially when capitalism is so firmly embeded in the American psyche and all political parties in the US are capitalist.

sissifytoserve -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 4:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver But your point about what the difference being sat at home with a gun waiting to defend yourself against a government is going to make is pertinent, especially when capitalism is so firmly embeded in the American psyche and all political parties in the US are capitalist. Not all of us. Freedom is WAYY more important to some of us.

KenDckey -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 5:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is the fascination with guns in the US? Now I know it's in the constituion but wasn't that written in 1776 when there was about 826 people living in the US and the arms referred to were flintlock muskets that required about 13 steps to fire - in other words, by the time it was fired you could have swerved the thing. These things weren't exactly .70mm hand howitzers with an infra red scope and armour-piercing bullets. If the answer is that Americans needed to arm themselves 225 years ago in a war with Britain don't worry about it, there's no way we're going to pull that shit again, we can't even run a bath anymore let alone a military campaign. Surely it would be better to have a pub on every corner rather than a gun shop? After all, if you want filling with shots, better to be vodka than bullets. Or even swap licencing laws so we can get a beer after 12 at night but you can't get a gun after 12 night - might save a few lives. So what is the attraction of owning guns? Sorryz I thought fasinations was your choice of words Look up Ken, it was my choice of word. The point I was making is that it was the wrong choice of word by me. The reason being the image that fascination conjures in my mind is one of raw enthusiasm. My mistake. Sometimes people type/write/speak without giving the issue the required thought and thus, as said, political prejudice masks what is really on the person's mind. My genuine intention was to ask why the power? why the symbolism? why is it something that Americans feel so strongly about? As said, fascination was the wrong choice of word. well in that case it is cause I like to blow shit up

Rule -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 6:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is the fascination with guns in the US? Nearly all men are interested in weapons. It is required by evolution theory. Those who own and wield weapons may reproduce. Those who do not own weapons are murdered and do not reproduce and their women are made slaves and their possessions are stolen. It is quite simple. Survival of the fittest, i.e. of the ones having weapons. Any man who does not own a weapon, in evolutionary terms is a retard and a looser. Evolution theory predicts that women will find men with weapons more attractive than men without weapons.

Dtesmoac -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 6:07:30 PM)
Your ignorance on the matter shows. The DC sniper saga occured in one of the MOST RESTRICTIVE areas of our country. Pulpsmack - you've missed my point. I agree whole heartedly that a hunting rifle would be a far better waepon for this. The location within the US is almost irrelevant because whilst living in the US for the last year firearms, containers being checked onto planes with hunting rifles in them, pick ups with dead dear hanging out and a general presence of a wide variety of guns available clearly even in the restricted areas are easily transportable across state lines. They are readily and easily available at low cost. The specifics of the Gas station sniper are not the point it is that someone who new what they were doing and was coordinated with others could cheeply but the equipment probably legally and then go out an do it easily and probably not be caught for some considerable time. Seeing a carrying case being loaded into vehicles is common place int he US, having one in the house is common place. In the UK such instances by there un common nature raises suspician. NB on one of your earlier post - 1812 was started by the US to annex Canada on the pretex of British interference with US shipping. British troops "invaded" US area after US invaded Canada.

Dtesmoac -> RE: The US and guns (10/14/2006 6:09:40 PM)
Since suspicion would be equally aroused in both areas your point makes no sense. If a terrorist cell wished to do the same upon England, what makes you think it couldn't be done? England couldn't do anything about the IRA. Use of IRA firearms was generally prevented on mainland Britain because of the problems with smuggling firearms etc, which was why most mainland attackes were fertilizer bombs. It would now be easier due to greater number of illegal firearms - but still lower level than legal ones in US !!!!!

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 12:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is the fascination with guns in the US? Nearly all men are interested in weapons. It is required by evolution theory. Those who own and wield weapons may reproduce. Those who do not own weapons are murdered and do not reproduce and their women are made slaves and their possessions are stolen. It is quite simple. Survival of the fittest, i.e. of the ones having weapons. Any man who does not own a weapon, in evolutionary terms is a retard and a looser. Evolution theory predicts that women will find men with weapons more attractive than men without weapons. In evolutionary terms the gun is not the weapon. The weapons we have are intelligence, appearance, physical size, social status etc.

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 12:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent sissify, I take the point of your man in the link that the average British person gets a raw deal from the Government. I wholeheartedly agree. Statement - if you sit back and let them get away with it then you're in exactly the same position we are and all the rhetoric about the constitution/rights is simply rhetoric. Question - surely it is far better to change the people in Government than try and keep the Government at bay with a gun? Oh come on NG. The average Brit has a living on par with the average western European and American and all have similar rights with a few cultural variations. Milking the rich won't make a deal of difference. If I had said relative raw deal then you would have been right to make a comparison with Western Europe. As I specifically mentioned the British Government and the British people your comment is not relevant here. The average Briton may have a standard of living on a par with the average Western European but neither the average Briton or Western European has a standard of living on a par with their respective Governments and establishments. A point aside, roughly 3 weeks ago you were arguing that the Germany is governed for Germans more than Britain governed for the British people. Now you're offering a contradictory point of view. Some consistency would be useful here. Also, on this very thread you stated that the Dutch enjoy more rights than the Americans. Now you're saying Western Europeans and Americans have similar rights. Again, consistency would support the strength of your argument.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875