Terrorist opens fire at a country music festival in Las Vegas - Page 36 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14877379
Godstud wrote:Nice deflection, but I'll answer it for you.

I'm not deflecting at all. You seem to be perpetuating a myth and I'd like to know why.

Godstud wrote:They are designed to defeat body armour often worn by police officers.

Actually the original "armor piercing" ammo for police officers was designed and marketed by Paul J. Kopsch, Dan Turcus, and Don Ward for use by the police to use against perps in motor vehicles, not against bullet resistant vests. Google KTW ammunition for more details.

Who is marketing armor piercing ammo for use in defeating body armor worn by police officers? I know of a few and they're generally restricted to law enforcement and as far as I know the police aren't using that ammo to kill each other. Can you list any incidents in which armor piercing ammo was used by a civilian to murder a police officer?

Godstud wrote:Now get back on topic.

I can't just let something inaccurate go by without comment. Can you?
#14877381
Drlee wrote:This is the kind of idiotic statement that makes arguing with gun freaks useless. Try harder sport. This is sixth grade stuff.

Your arguments are stupid to college folks like myself. What about the second amendment to the constitution don't you understand?
#14877414
bump stocks... gun freaks

Bump stocks are an irrelevance.

If Paddock had wanted full-auto, he didn't need a bump stock to harness his AR-15's recoil to fire full-auto.

[youtube]L2YLgLj8KVY[/youtube]


:)
#14877415
Right @ingliz, so semi-automatic rifles like that should be severely restricted or even banned. You don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer with.

This all you need:
No rapid fire option.
Image

5 round magazine. Good enough for hunting, unless you are simply shite at shooting, which means you probably shouldn't be hunting, anyhow. You would not use a rifle for home defense, because bullets of that calibre pass easily through multiple walls. Your neighbours would be in danger from your self-defense shots.
#14877422
severely restricted or even banned.

Semi-auto pistols?

You can do the same with a pistol - One hand holds the grip, two fingers are placed in the trigger well, and then the grip hand shoves the weapon forward while the trigger fingers remain stationary - and Glock sells 33 round 9mm magazines.


:)
#14877469
Godstud wrote:automatic pistols?

A 'semi-automatic' version of the Ingram MAC-11 machine pistol became the favorite of drug gangs nationwide in the 1980s. The gun proved so easy to convert to fully automatic operation - so easy that even inexperienced gun owners could make the change in a matter of minutes, using only a file - that demand for the gun soared nationwide, and black markets formed as middlemen, including one Georgia policeman, bought large quantities, converted the guns, and resold them to the drug underworld. A study of all guns confiscated in Detroit from January of 1989 through April of 1990 put the Cobray M11/9 first among assault weapons.

Trivia : A converted Cobray M11/9 was used by the Order, a neo-Nazi group, to kill the Denver talk-show host Alan Berg.

Today, you can buy a clip-on polymer stock and foregrip for a Glock pistol from FAB Defense, load up on 33rnd mags, and bump your way to a cheap and cheerful machine pistol, if that is what takes your fancy.
#14877474
I agree with all you have said Ingliz. That all the more shows how preposterous our gun laws have become.

Your arguments are stupid to college folks like myself.


:lol:
What about the second amendment to the constitution don't you understand?


We have been over this Skippy. Pay attention. The SCOTUS (Refer to the constitution for what that is or ask one of your college professors) has already ruled that the government at virtually all levels may limit the kinds of firearms that one may own. In November it upheld the lower court decision allowing a ban on assault weapons and open carry in Florida.

In the Heller decision it allowed that handguns may be not be banned for self defense in Washington DC but it did not strike down laws that allowed carry of handguns outside of the home. Quoting from an analysis of Heller you will see that my position is completely in line with the constitution as interpreted by Scalia (a strict constitutionalist) who wrote the majority opinion:

Although the Heller decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court made it clear that the right to possess a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions. The Court indicated that the Second Amendment continues to allow for limits on guns like the following:

Not allowing everyone to possess a gun. The right can be withheld from felons and the mentally ill, for example.

Not allowing guns to be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding people from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, remain valid.

Certain restrictions on the sale of guns. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms continue to be allowed.

Banning certain types of guns. The Second Amendment does not protect guns that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. (The Court endorsed the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'")

Outlawing concealed weapons. Laws prohibiting concealed weapons probably remain valid. (Later confirmed.)

So what I propose is completely constitutional. If you somehow see the right to bear arms as unlimited, you are the one who is wrong. And oh by the way. Carrying loaded firearms on a military base was and is against the law unless authorized to do so by their commander O-5 and above.)

So why don't you spend a nice time-out reading all those "college" books you have on the constitution again. This time read the SCOTUS decisions too.
#14877530
Drlee wrote: He could have killed more if the report of his weapon were less prominent.

So after days of evasion and insults you're finally come up with a reason why you think silencers and their owners are immoral. Too bad it's a fact you made up; unless you were talking about something else besides a sniper with a suppressed high power rifle. Very convenient right?
#14877554
If I was an American, I would consider gun laws to be as important an issue as health care, yet this thread now seems to be about somebody's hobby.

You know each law and what public support for it is. You've probably correctly concluded that the gun lobby/National gun registry is blocking change.

Now it's time to figure out how to work around this. You've done this before. When "one for the road" was identified as resulting in deaths, Mom's Against Drunk Driving sprung up and went to work. When over half of Americans were rattling on about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" no end of groups representing those people excluded from things guaranteed married folks arose and spoke on topic. Celebraties and a few politicians joined the fray until SCOTUS corrected the issue. This is the time to pressure the politicians to do their jobs. For your children, get folks involved and don't shut up. Singers, actors, football players. Keep your kids out of school. Do whatever it takes.

And see if you can't address whatever it is in your culture that is glorifying guns. Canadians have the same access to guns you have, and much the same culture. we just don't run around killing each other. Why?
#14877556
Ranb wrote:So after days of evasion and insults you're finally come up with a reason why you think silencers and their owners are immoral. Too bad it's a fact you made up; unless you were talking about something else besides a sniper with a suppressed high power rifle. Very convenient right?


Seems like that's an anecdotal and tangential case, and not a 'be-all-end-all' illustrative example of the topic at hand.
#14877560
Stormsmith wrote:If I was an American, I would consider gun laws to be as important an issue as health care, yet this thread now seems to be about somebody's hobby.

It is a very fun hobby. Healthcare is far more important, though. Safe gun owners have very little chance of being an issue to anyone.

And some gun owners (potentially including myself, I am still a member of the Liberal Gun Club, a more sane group than the NRA, though I don't own a gun right now, it is too expensive) are willing to recognize exceptionally reasonable measures like training, licenses, background checks, and other regulations that only make sense for what can only ever be regarded as very dangerous objects. If it is good enough for cars, it is good enough for guns. And then, a lot of us have no problem with concealed carry. It may be, for others, an odd American trait, but it is a trait nonetheless.

If you need to buy an automatic rifle with an extended magazine and suppressor without a background check or license, you probably have more significant issues that would need more attention than giving you a gun.
#14877632
So after days of evasion and insults you're finally come up with a reason why you think silencers and their owners are immoral. Too bad it's a fact you made up; unless you were talking about something else besides a sniper with a suppressed high power rifle. Very convenient right?


I am sorry you are incapable of understanding my posts. You are the only one here so handicapped. More likely is that you simply can't imagine that you are failing to make your case. I am going to give you more than you deserve and tell you why you are.

You are fixated on my use of the word 'immoral'. I would like to think that you want to be a moral person. I have no evidence that you do it is simply my own hope for everyone I meet. Now pay attention. You asked me a question. Remember that? Your question was:

Do you believe there is anything illegal or immoral about making silencers in the USA?


To this I replied:

Highly immoral. That is why I would not hire you. And oh by the way it is just silly too.


I went on to say:

Why don't you try doing something that benefits mankind some day? You know. Instead of acting like a GI wannabee.


Remember that?

So where did you go wrong? Well first you tried to pick an argument where none was necessary. Or even smart. Did you ask me if there was evidence that.....? No you did not. You asked me to make a moral decision. I made it. You do not get to dictate my morality. God does and I do. If you do not believe in God then I will happily take the blame. You have no right to expect me to justify my morality to you. So strike one.

You went on to make some of what you might call fact based arguments about silencers. Some of your arguments were contested and proved untrue by Ingliz. Some were irrelevant. Some deliberately misleading. But no matter. That is not the subject of your argument. The subject of your argument is my moral position on silencers. Your arguments did not address that at all. Strike two.

Finally you resorted to insults. Strike three.

But still I took a great deal of time to explain to you how I arrived at my moral decision that even the desire to possess certain kinds of weapons and there attendant accessories is, in my opinion, immoral. I went on in great detail to explain to you why silencers, as one of these accessories, simply is part of my moral decision that we should, on moral grounds, ban or severely restrict certain kinds of weapons and their accessories. These arguments were, it would appear, too complex or two difficult for you to understand and/or refute. You tried neither.

Now let me clarify. Ingliz collects firearms. I totally understand that. I support his government's decision to allow him to do that after careful consideration. Judging from his excellent posts here he is a mature and thoughtful person. No reason to prevent him from building his collection. I understand why he might like to collect them. Some are quite beautiful. Some are technological curiosities. Some are great fun to shoot. Some are of historical significance. I am glad there are people like him preserving our heritage in this way and I would like to see his collection. I am sure there are many of his weapons I would also like to fire. Shooting can be great fun and I particularly like shooting historically significant firearms.

I remember an opportunity I had with the German Army to participate in an event where I not only was afforded the opportunity to shoot and qualify with their G-3, the Walther P38 (P1) and the MG-3 (and earn the permanent award of the Schuetzenschnur) but also to share with them some of our weapons; the M-14, M16, M60 and M2. We brought along, for the fun and to add a historical perspective the Thompson sub machine gun and the M3 Grease Gun. (Fun fact. The old grease gun was still issued as late as the 1990s and is a real hoot to shoot. My unit in Germany had 10 of them.) So I understand the allure and fun of shooting sports and military firearms are among the most fun to shoot.

With me so far?

Now let's talk about the morality thing. Soldiers do not 'play' with their weapons. This is not to say they are not fun to shoot but it is to say that, for a soldier, particularly a combat arms soldier, there is an ever present knowledge of exactly what we are about. As solorcross alluded to earlier... Soldiers travel to far off lands, meet new and interesting people, and kill them. It is never lost on us that these weapons in our hands are not beautiful. They are ugly in purpose. They are the very living embodiment of a "necessary evil". Sherman did not say, "war is hell". He said, "war is all hell". Until one has seen people broken by bullets it still remains a theory.

My first understanding of this:

I remember, during the Vietnam war, my training at a place that was called "tigerland" in those days. We went out on a patrol in the Louisiana swamp. We were to ambush whoever came down a particular trail. We carefully set our ambush. I had an M-16 rifle with an M203 grenade launcher on it. After a couple of hours, down the trail came a platoon of infantry. In those seconds before we lit them up I remember looking down the site of my M-16 and making a decision on which one of them I would kill first. I have in my mind's eye to this day exactly what this guy looked like. What a beautiful and healthy individual he was walking slowly up the road unaware that his next footstep would be his last. Then I slowly and dispassionately fired a three round burst at him. This haunts me to this day even more than far more intense and real things I experienced later. It was the very moment when I realized that I could simply (and far to easily) kill another human being. And that this was my job. There were no flags waving. He was not shooting at me. I could have simply disappeared into the swamp and let him grow old. And this was just training. But that training, that day, not all that came after as I pursued my career, changed the way I felt about guns but most particularly about myself.

So. When I see a civilian out on the range with his M16, his "go kit" and his fantasies , banging away at a human silhouette I do not see someone preparing to defend his home. I see immorality. To fantasize about killing other human beings is immoral in my opinion. And it is sick. People who do it are not well. There is something wrong with them that a dose of moral education could just possibly help. Not so the guy with his pistol, training to protect his home and learning how to do it properly and with the least danger to others.

When I grab my Colt commander and head for the range I know that I am going there to practice killing people. An act that could very well be immoral even when technically legal. On those rare occasions when I slip a firearm under my jacket to go out and about I like to pause and remind myself what exactly I am doing, when I might use it, and what I need to think about to protect others. It is a deadly serious thing. I literally try to frighten myself with what could go wrong. And I have been trained to do that stuff far far better than the average dude carrying a concealed weapon 'cause he can. I am not a felon. I would NEVER carry it while drinking or otherwise impaired. It is not a fashion accessory. It is not an extension of my penis. It does not make me potent or sexy. It is not fun and absolutely most important of all, I am not safer when I have it.

So now you know the morality side of it. I know you will try and present some facts about how silencers are safety items just there to save the shooter's ears. Please do not play us for fools. We do not believe you. You don't see people clamoring to put them on shotguns. On the range good, properly fitted head phones do the job quite well. Hunters do not need any more advantage.

But understand this. Silencers are just one more piece of a big puzzle. I do not like the gun laws as they are. I find people who arm themselves, harboring some fantasy that they are likely to be killed by a gunman if they don't have one to protect themselves, to be simpletons who are bad at math. I find the untrained person who buys an assault weapon so he can play big-penis at the range to be proceeding from an immoral fantasy. And any person who carries a handgun, or even has one in his/her home without careful training not only in how to shoot it but more importantly when and why to be little more than a dangerous idiot.

Finally. I do not buy the pea-brained argument that goes something like this: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The very idea behind this is idiotic. Oh it sounds good but anyone who thinks this through realizes that absent the gun, people are much harder to kill either accidentally or on purpose. We are not all better off because some 25 year old grocery clerk has a Glock under his hoodie. Though not usually applied to guns it is most fitting that I insert this here: My prayer. 'God protect us from idiots with good intentions.'

I do not expect you to actually read and think about what I just posted. If you have never been a combat trained soldier you won't understand much of it anyway though I tried to keep it simple. The immorality of which I speak does not begin when someone picks up a firearm. It begins with the fantasy about killing another human being and doing it more efficiently. That is my belief. So if you feel compelled to talk about decibels and hearing protection save your breath. You are missing the point entirely.
#14877670
Drlee wrote:I am sorry you are incapable of understanding my posts.

I understand them all right.

Drlee wrote:You are fixated on my use of the word 'immoral'.

Yes, you judged certain inanimate objects and the people who possess them as immoral. It seems that you're one of those people who think the only kinds of guns that are acceptable are the ones they themselves own.

Drlee wrote:To this I replied:
I went on to say:
Remember that?

Yes I remember that. You also have no reason to think I'm a GI wanna be. Nothing I've said in this thread should lead you believe it.

Drlee wrote:So where did you go wrong? .... So strike one.

You called me immoral

Drlee wrote:You went on to make some of what you might call fact based arguments about silencers. Some of your arguments were contested and proved untrue by Ingliz. Some were irrelevant. Some deliberately misleading. But no matter. That is not the subject of your argument. The subject of your argument is my moral position on silencers. Your arguments did not address that at all. Strike two.

If what you said is true, then perhaps you can directly address the mistakes I made. You're the only making up facts about silencers, not me.

Drlee wrote:Finally you resorted to insults. Strike three.

Perhaps you forgot the 1st insult was yours?

Drlee wrote:But still I took a great deal of time to explain to you how I arrived at my moral decision that even the desire to possess certain kinds of weapons and there attendant accessories is, in my opinion, immoral. I went on in great detail to explain to you why silencers, as one of these accessories, simply is part of my moral decision that we should, on moral grounds, ban or severely restrict certain kinds of weapons and their accessories. These arguments were, it would appear, too complex or two difficult for you to understand and/or refute. You tried neither.

Yes you went into much irrelevant detail on your views on guns. Big deal. Now we are back to that fact you made up. Why do you think a silencer is effective enough to suppress the noise of an ar-15 or ar-10 enough to make a sniper like Paddock more dangerous? So far all we have is your say so.

Drlee wrote:Now let me clarify. Ingliz collects firearms.....

More irrelevant gas you are contributing to the conversation.

Drlee wrote:I remember an opportunity ....

Yes, I'm with you. The guns you shoot are not immoral and neither are you for shooting them. But the ones I possess are.

Drlee wrote: It begins with the fantasy about killing another human being and doing it more efficiently. That is my belief. So if you feel compelled to talk about decibels and hearing protection save your breath. You are missing the point entirely.

It is you that are missing the point.
#14877672
Zagadka wrote:It is a very fun hobby.

I agree.

Zagadka wrote: Healthcare is far more important, though. Safe gun owners have very little chance of being an issue to anyone.

Also agree. The ACA was an important step towards making health care more accessible in the USA.

Zagadka wrote:And some gun owners (potentially including myself, I am still a member of the Liberal Gun Club, a more sane group than the NRA,

I voted for Obama the last time he was running. Watching Trump get election was soul crushing. The NRA can suck me.

Zagadka wrote: background checks, and other regulations that only make sense for what can only ever be regarded as very dangerous objects. If it is good enough for cars, it is good enough for guns. And then, a lot of us have no problem with concealed carry. It may be, for others, an odd American trait, but it is a trait nonetheless.

I support universal bkgd checks, but some states like WA go to far with it. I've never been comfortable carrying concealed.

Zagadka wrote:If you need to buy an automatic rifle with an extended magazine and suppressor without a background check or license, you probably have more significant issues that would need more attention than giving you a gun.

Well, no individual has been able to do that legally since 1934.
#14877683
@ranb

I see no reason to continue to engage with you. You don't understand my point or refuse to acknowledge the difference between a moral decision and a scientific one. You are making no arguments just nattering on about the same old nonsense.

Now make your post on my comment. You will have to have the last word. Why don't you claim victory. Then everyone here can check your maturity level.

Until someone posts a salient response I believe that I have been clear enough about my position for most everyone to understand.
#14877684
Stormsmith wrote: Canadians have the same access to guns you have, and much the same culture. we just don't run around killing each other. Why?
I think thats mostly because canadians live in a pretty great state with a respect for human rights, incuding a well financed school system, a good social state, etc etc etc.

Heck you didnt even participated in the financial crisis that hit everyone in 2008/2009 - your banks had been too strictly regulated. How cool is that ? There are few other countries who can claim the same thing.

Canadians dont usually solve problems with violence while thats a far too accepted way in the USA.
#14877717
Drlee wrote: @ranb

I see no reason to continue to engage with you. You don't understand my point or refuse to acknowledge the difference between a moral decision and a scientific one.

You are misrepresenting what I want from you.

Drlee wrote:You are making no arguments just nattering on about the same old nonsense.

You claimed that the Vegas sniper could have been aided by using a silencer. You keep running away from supporting the claim and post other garbage instead.

Drlee wrote:Now make your post on my comment. You will have to have the last word. Why don't you claim victory. Then everyone here can check your maturity level.

There is no victory if I can't make you understand that you should be supporting your claims with evidence.
#14885859
Zagadka wrote:It (guns) is a very fun hobby. Healthcare is far more important, though.

I strongly disagree.

The USA was created without any kind of central health care. For many early American settlers, health care meant a shot of whiskey in a dirty glass.

But without guns (and their biological friend smallpox), the USA would never have existed.

It was created out of guns.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So have people given up on blaming that terrorist […]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]

...Or maybe because there are many witnesses sayin[…]