BF2S Forums Why do they want to take it away?

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Spark wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

for the brick part im just talking about the firepower of AK's... but i think ban high fire power weapons like AK's... since its un-patriot to use a weapon that was used in wars against ur country

If I use a brand new, highly stealthy, effective, devestating weapon on the US... Do you think the Military is going to give a shit that I used it on them? They'll be like 'Nice gun. Let me have one.'

well still un-patriotic. But the Army started stealing/collecting AK's from dead insurgeants and what not, and they use it as main weapon since it can be used by any dumbass in the world and have a high reliability

Wow.  Where did you hear of this?  I only spent 8 years in the army, and one tour in Iraq, and I never saw any of this.

imortal wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Spark wrote:

If I use a brand new, highly stealthy, effective, devestating weapon on the US... Do you think the Military is going to give a shit that I used it on them? They'll be like 'Nice gun. Let me have one.'

well still un-patriotic. But the Army started stealing/collecting AK's from dead insurgeants and what not, and they use it as main weapon since it can be used by any dumbass in the world and have a high reliability

Wow.  Where did you hear of this?  I only spent 8 years in the army, and one tour in Iraq, and I never saw any of this.

I think (don't quote) that the M16 and its counterparts don't have a reputation for being reliable. I hear they are quite jam-happy.

I think the fact that Americans HAVE the right to bear arms includes two distinct elements I see that pale inthe whole argument, but, two I return to as my BASE reasons for opposing control...

#1...No offense to our buddies anywhere else in  the World, but, I think a very STRONG deterrent to anyone invading our shores has NOTHING to do with facing our military or gov forces...Its dealing with the regular joes protecting their properties that most are either up to their eyeballs in debt holding on to, or, spent their lives turning it into their "Private Idahos"...Piss off the masses, you got a REAL, CAPABLE, ARMED rebel fight on your hands...It would tak YEARS to contain, secure, and MAINTAIN...ANY (Pardon the pun) "FLAGS" in this country...I'm in if that were ever the case...

#2...A populace that is unarmed is VERY easy to control and manipulate at the whim of government elements that dont like the idea of "By the People, For the people"...A captive audience is easiest to sell...

We defend our homes...Without that edge, we are vulnerable to ANYONE who wants to push past us...NOT ON MY WATCH!!!  Stand to the END!!!


I'm no revolutionary...Just like having the RIGHT to defend my family from the freaks out there today...Police won't show up until AFTER the fact...CALL THEM, ASK THEM...I prefer to COVER the HOME BASE until the cavalry DOES find the time to arrive!!!  Break in my house at your own risk...THAT IS DETERRENT!!!

OUT!

Tyferra wrote:

I noticed that lots of people are "Guns for All," so I'm not going to be popular here.

I find guns are fine. Guns are great I go hunting and I love shooting! It's a lot of great fun. I myself own a firearms licence which you need to have to buy/own/use guns in New Zealand. However, this American "Guns are our RIGHT" I disagree with. I don't give a flying fuck if it's in the Constitution, in my eyes it is outdated - guns should be a privilage, not a right. Yes, I am going to look at this issue through American lenses.

In a place where guns are a right, EVERYONE can have a gun. This mean that people can protect themselves, but, of course, that people that want to harm other people can have guns. You could say that if everyone has a gun than no-one wants to risk attacking anyone else, but it dosn't work that way. If you are going to attack someone who has no idea that you are atacking them, who do you think is going to get off the first shot?

With stricter gun laws, it would be harder for everyone to get a gun. Here you could say that an attacker could get a gun and attack an unarmed person, but with one armed and one unarmed person, the armed person is less likely to use their gun as there is no threat to them. Unless the attacker is completely sadistic, (and there are those type of people I won't deny it,) no-one should come to physical harm.

Going back to the both people armed scenario, what if the defender tried to counter-attack? Then either the defender is Quickdraw McGraw or the attacker, who already has their gun drawn and pointed at the defender, can quite easily squeeze their hand by the time the defender has even put their and on their holster, (or whatever,) they will be shot.

My point here is, everyone having a gun, DOSN'T mean that they are protected against those who want to harm them. Statistics would show that your twice as likely to shoot a family member, yadda yadda, but I don't trust statisticians. 45% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I definatly think that guns like AKs or LMGs or all this bullshit that militias like buying should NOT BE FOR SALE TO CIVILLIANS, at least not without some kind of licence or permit. There is no need for a civilian to protect themselves with a rifle designed to protect you in a warzone. I don't like the idea of people keeping them for 'collections' either. That's what museums are for. The only reason to have a lot of huge powerful guns is if you suffer from what I like to call, "Needledick Syndrom."
(I know that a few bf2s guys have firearms collections so I apologise for that one.)

Automatic guns like AKs and M16s are designed and meant for killing people. No-one goes hunting with an AK except that one guy who I went out with that time who took his gun to sleep with him. Fuckin' scary because I woke up and the barrel was pointed at my head. It was a modified AK with Semi-Auto firing only and a ten-shot magazine, but you don't want to wake up to that. Trust me.
Why take an AK hunting anyway? If you can't hit a deer with the first shot you shouldn't bloody be hunting anyway. You don't need 30 bullets to take down a deer.

So I've thrown my hat into the ring. I'd be happy to explain myself later if you disaproove, and I know there will be many who do.

By the way, "Needledick Syndrome" dosn't mean, as popular thought would have you believe, that you have a small dick. Just something... lacking in your life. Some people show NS by buying huge sound systems for their car and show off or another such show of machoism that they can't show simply by being themselves.
Not saying theres anything wrong with fast cars or loud sound systems, but if you're going to bore me with useless jagon and hype, yes you have NS, and no, I am not fucken interested.

Well said

Horseman 77 wrote:

Dear Sirs:

Please show me:

One gun Control Law that ever worked.

One Gun Control law that would not be redundent if you punished the crimanals first.

and lastly, Make sure you come for my gun after you have disarmed every crimanal first.

Then I am on board 100%...( Read ) Never lol.

One law that worked

B.Schuss wrote:

The problem I see here ( and it is apparant in these forums ) is that the shift in cultural values surrrounding firearms that would be necessary to get the support of the US population for such a measure is just not going to happen. You love your guns too much...

Damn straight, and that's never gonna change. Here's to another 200 years of gun-toting Americans pissing off the rest of the planet. w00t!!!1One1!!1eleventythree!!

Gun laws are like iimmigration laws, they are never going to work, because they are never enforced.

Spark wrote:

Q1: What is the one and only purpose of a gun?.

To be effective at its intended task. Deer Hunting, bench rest target, Trap , Sniper, Upland game, Duck hunting, Skeet, Home defense, Police. Anti sniper, Etc. Where were you going with that?

Spark wrote:

Q2: Are you sure that it is morally responsible to use it? I mean, what if someone did that to you? Or your child?.

What?  took them skeet shooting with out my knowledge?

Spark wrote:

If someone is holding a 10 inch knife to your throat and is deaf, then OK. Otherwise, no.

No need, I love to shoot skeet, I just suck at it though.

I think maybe americans should keep their guns. If you invade the rest of the world you may need them. No but take a tip from us brits we've banned guns almost completly and next we'll probally ban water pistols jk. Our country is one of the safest in the world and that's one thing i love about it. Civs really shouldnt be able to have guns. John Lennon sang happiness is a warm gun to take the piss out of america freely letting people have guns. Then he got shot but he ment well.

Last edited by {RS}Diamonddog (2006-04-15 15:43:14)

John Lennon Couldn't "Take the Piss out of " Yoko Ono, and Paul Mccartney's
" Lucky Break " Was a song about him Trashing The best thing that ever happened to all four of them.

On that note I would trade one dead singer for 6 million people who were incenerated by an over zealous government who disarmed them first.

Do what you will in your own contry. Europe doesn't have a lot that needs to be Emulated in the Americas, Thanks anyway.

HornyToady wrote:

B.Schuss, Just for the record...and I am an American....Americans do not live in a Democracy...Americans live in a Republic that is guided by Democratic principles...Democracy is a verb....meaning it requires action...so to live in a true Democracy...everyone in that country who is of age and capable of voting needs to do that...and since only 20% of the elgible voters in America in the last presidential election voted....this is hardly grounds to say that America is a Democracy.

And you spell English quite well.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying the majority of americans chose not to vote ( and thereby chose not to make use of the only legal means they have to exercise control over their government ) ?

I am sorry, but if that is true, it is even more sad that you fight so hard to promote freedom and democracy around the world, but at the same time don't trust your own system of government enough to go vote yourselves.

Guns won't help here, IMHO. Every nation needs a government that has the trust of its people. Just imagine the poor people in Iraq. What are they supposed to think when they see that the majority of americans don't even believe in democracy and instead of going to the polls would rather keep a gun at home just in case their government turns on them ?

Or are you in turn going to allow every Iraqí to keep his AK ? I don't think so...

I would also like to see you elaborate on the difference between a republic and a democracy, especially with regard to democratic traditions in the US compared to Europe. I have never quite understood why americans stress the republic thing so much. IMHO, the US is a democracy, plain and simple.

thx for the compliment on my english, much appreciated. I used to be a major in english and contemporary history at cologne university, and I am glad I can finally make use of both those assets now...

Tyferra wrote:

I noticed that lots of people are "Guns for All," so I'm not going to be popular here.

I find guns are fine. Guns are great I go hunting and I love shooting! It's a lot of great fun. I myself own a firearms licence which you need to have to buy/own/use guns in New Zealand. However, this American "Guns are our RIGHT" I disagree with.

I own guns, I never Hunt, I don't enjoy killing (there are some Horses I would Pay to kill! Lol ) Most places in America you need a license permit Check Etc.

Tyferra wrote:

I don't give a flying fuck if it's in the Constitution, in my eyes it is outdated - guns should be a privilage, not a right.

To you the Constitution seems out dated. Noted: With the things that have happened in the Last 200 years since it was written, Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Death Camps etc. To me it seems like good insurance. I believe most israelis are armed. They seem to " get it ".
Our Founding Fathers were incredibly far sighted in this respect. I trust them more than you.

Tyferra wrote:

Yes, I am going to look at this issue through American lenses.

You are assuming you can do so.

Tyferra wrote:

In a place where guns are a right, EVERYONE can have a gun. This mean that people can protect themselves, but, of course, that people that want to harm other people can have guns. You could say that if everyone has a gun than no-one wants to risk attacking anyone else, but it dosn't work that way. If you are going to attack someone who has no idea that you are atacking them, who do you think is going to get off the first shot?

No one ever said Guns will cure all. Or for that matter police will eliminate all crime. Army's will prevent all War. Medicine will prevent all disease. But it does act as a deterrent. Example. While in the throes of a crime wave, The State of  Florida In an Act of desperation, allowed concealed carry permits to its citizens. There was an immediate drop in crime. In fact The criminals would only assault arriving tourists at the Airport because they knew (just having come off a plane) The couldn't have a Gun on them. Anyone remember this from the 90s?

Tyferra wrote:

With stricter gun laws, it would be harder for everyone to get a gun.

Like criminals will obey a Law ? Have stricter "Drug laws " made it harder for anyone to get drugs? Remember you can make a gun. In the days before mass-production, Your local blacksmith made and repaired your gun.

Tyferra wrote:

Here you could say that an attacker could get a gun and attack an unarmed person,

Or a group of bad people, not ARMED, A Gang could attack an unarmed person. Argument Ends.

Tyferra wrote:

but with one armed and one unarmed person, the armed person is less likely to use their gun as there is no threat to them. Unless the attacker is completely sadistic, (and there are those type of people I won't deny it,) no-one should come to physical harm.

The professional criminal rarely resorts to violence. Most people who do resort to Violence are sadistic at least and have a myriad of other problems.
The Supine puppy act is a bad idea In most violent situations. Do as you see fit, however.

Tyferra wrote:

Going back to the both people armed scenario, what if the defender tried to counter-attack? Then either the defender is Quickdraw McGraw or the attacker, who already has their gun drawn and pointed at the defender, can quite easily squeeze their hand by the time the defender has even put their and on their holster, (or whatever,) they will be shot.

When you are Armed you must be More Aware.

You also "Do not Looked Scared " This alone will ward off " The professional "

who knows how to choose his prey carefully,

And the " Sadist " who just wants to hurt a Helpless and Frieghtend person.

The look " You have picked the WRONG person, Move on !  " being armed gives you, is usually enough to prevent violence from both types. ( personal Experince )

Again a Completely Random act of violence cannot be avoided.

But being armed allows You. " The NON Criminal " to decide. Not some demented type.

If someone drops a brick off an overpass on to your car. Or Decides to cross the double yellow line into oncoming traffic with their Car. This will never be Nerfed with a LAW.

Tyferra wrote:

My point here is, everyone having a gun, DOSN'T mean that they are protected against those who want to harm them. Statistics would show that your twice as likely to shoot a family member, yadda yadda, but I don't trust statisticians. 45% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

This is a Quote from the "Kleck Study", and The term used isn't " Family member " Stats for that are minimal " Loved one" was the term Kleck used.
When asked to define it, He said " people you know". But hidden in the Data ...example ( two drug dealers knew each other = Loved one ) Police knew Their Arrest victim too. So yea he included all police shootings in to create this stat. It is discredited study but people still quote it. lol

Tyferra wrote:

I definatly think that guns like AKs or LMGs or all this bullshit that militias like buying should NOT BE FOR SALE TO CIVILLIANS, at least not without some kind of licence or permit. There is no need for a civilian to protect themselves with a rifle designed to protect you in a warzone.

You will be happy to know they never were since " the 1934 Gun Control Act. "

Tyferra wrote:

I don't like the idea of people keeping them for 'collections' either. That's what museums are for.

Do I keep my horses and cars in a museum too? total nonsense.

Tyferra wrote:

The only reason to have a lot of huge powerful guns is if you suffer from what I like to call, "Needledick Syndrom."
(I know that a few bf2s guys have firearms collections so I apologise for that one.)

Is inadequacy the real issue?

Tyferra wrote:

Automatic guns like AKs and M16s are designed and meant for killing people. No-one goes hunting with an AK except that one guy who I went out with that time who took his gun to sleep with him. Fuckin' scary because I woke up and the barrel was pointed at my head. It was a modified AK with Semi-Auto firing only and a ten-shot magazine, but you don't want to wake up to that. Trust me.

The Bullet kills. The bullet "being an inanimate object" doesn't know what the firearm looked like that fired it. The .223 Cartridge was designed for Varmint hunting. The 7.62 X 39 is Identical in knock down and Ballistic to the Winchester .30.30 The most popular game Rifle in the USA
Another Small point. The 7.62X39 was designed to Wound. And this was the only round designed for war out of the examples you used. Ps your friend displays bad gun safety habits

Tyferra wrote:

Why take an AK hunting anyway? If you can't hit a deer with the first shot you shouldn't bloody be hunting anyway. You don't need 30 bullets to take down a deer.

Another Non Issue, You cant use a 30 round magazine to hunt in most ( All ?)  places,
In most places a 30.06 Springfield or K98 Mauser ( both battle rifles of which many thousands have been taken hunting ) will need to have the Magazines altered to 5 rounds or less.
But using the Crude sights that the AK has would be more sporting, along the lines of hunting with a muzzle loader or pistol instead of a scoped Weatherby 7mm Mag.

Tyferra wrote:

So I've thrown my hat into the ring. I'd be happy to explain myself later if you disaproove, and I know there will be many who do.

I thought you did try and explain yourself? My approval shouldn't matter to you as yours surely doesn't matter to me, We all love the divergent views and opinions. Points of view we didn't see, or things we never would have heard of otherwise.

" Well intended "  Poorly executed. fading hoofbeats....

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-18 10:26:41)

Lt.Garbo wrote:

PROOF GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK:

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

ENOUGH SAID

AMEN I really think that was well said, people need to give up on trying to take our guns away, those laws are never gonna work ever, and if you give me three examples