PDA

View Full Version : The 'open mind/informed decision' thread



wade1226
08-09-2005, 02:34 PM
OK, I used to really like the R&P forum, because the members were capable of having informed debates that could possibly change someone's viewpoint. Lately, though, almost all threads (even when they start out promising) degenerate into "stupid athiest/Christian/Muslim!" or "moronic conservative/liberal!!" or "you have no ****** clue, $#^#@!!!!" threads where closed minds and insults shut down any hope of an enjoyable debate.

While I know this is probably just wishful thinking on my part, I'd like this thread to be one where civil debates can take place (about any topic in the broad R&P scope) and where people can challenge the beliefs/ideals/viewpoints of others without flaming, insulting, or generalizing.

Keep in mind, though, that having an open mind doesn't mean blindly accepting all supporting evidence as fact, because all sources should be examined for factuality, accuracy, and bias (this is mentioned specifically with the evolution/creationism debate in mind), but that if you're going to engage in a debate, you should acknowledge the possibility that you may be wrong, or that someone else may be right about a few points.

I know my rep isn't so high as to be feared by all, but in an effort to keep these debates genuine, I may warn a straying debater to cut out the insults, and I WILL neg anyone who has trouble with the basis for this thread.

And lastly, yes, I realize I'm setting up a big bullseye for all the trolls, and as much as I like feeding the trolls too, please just ignore them here; they may actually go away.

---------------------------------

Now with all that in mind, please have some entertaining, informed (and no, it's not a crime to admit you don't know everything about anything), civil debates. Feel free to bring up any topic that fits R&P.

wade1226
08-09-2005, 02:36 PM
I'll start with a topic I'm pretty passionate about: gun control. I think that our founding fathers intended for an armed civilian populace to make sure that Washington realized where the power of the government came from. Because of this, I think the founding fathers would have wanted us to have firearms comparable to those of the military - that is, banning guns because they have no 'practical' purpose is inherently unconstitutional. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was intended to protect the rights of all Americans.

GLEX
08-09-2005, 02:37 PM
The problem is most people are too stubborn to admit that they are wrong and people base their arguments without the capability to back it up with credible sources.

wade1226
08-09-2005, 02:38 PM
The problem is most people are too stubborn to admit that they are wrong and people base their arguments without the capability to back it up with credible sources.
I understand, and that's why I created this thread, in the hopes that that kind of crap won't show up here.

GLEX
08-09-2005, 02:40 PM
I'll start with a topic I'm pretty passionate about: gun control. I think that our founding fathers intended for an armed civilian populace to make sure that Washington realized where the power of the government came from. Because of this, I think the founding fathers would have wanted us to have firearms comparable to those of the military - that is, banning guns because they have no 'practical' purpose is inherently unconstitutional. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was intended to protect the rights of all Americans.

Times change, it isnt a good idea to have thugs walking around with AK47s. Thats why there is a ban on assault rifles. The government has to have the power and ability to exercise a limited amount of control over its populace because some of the time the majority isnt capable of making proper decisions. And the government cant do that when the public is armed with military grade weaponry. Instead of having riots you would have God knows what...

wade1226
08-09-2005, 02:45 PM
Times change, it isnt a good idea to have thugs walking around with AK47s. Thats why there is a ban on assault rifles. The government has to have the power and ability to exercise a limited amount of control over its populace because some of the time the majority isnt capable of making proper decisions.
Actually, the assault weapons ban expired about a year ago, and since then, I haven't heard any news story that (accurately) described some thugs gang-banging with "assault" rifles.

As far as the AWB, I think that was just testing the waters to see how the populace would react to taking away certain gun-owning rights, and I think the politicians learned a lesson. While there were other factors in play, too, I think it played a large part in the massive change in Congress. When the AWB bill passed, that was the last Congress that had a democrat majority. The next election (and so far, ten years now), the republicans took over.

Of course, with the right to bear arms comes responsibility, and I think that anyone who commits a crime with a firearm should be put in the pokey for a long, long time. I think that would serve to keep gun crimes in check much better than outlawing certain firearms because they look "scary."

EDIT - just saw you added something:

And the government cant do that when the public is armed with military grade weaponry.
Of course, the government can't install a dictatorship when the citizenry is armed like that either.

GLEX
08-09-2005, 02:47 PM
Bush wants to renew the AWB. I dont think one year is a long enough time period to judge whether no ban would be effective or not.

wade1226
08-09-2005, 02:50 PM
Bush wants to renew the AWB. I dont think one year is a long enough time period to judge whether no ban would be effective or not.
I think Bush is just paying lip-service to some of the anti-gun politicos who only want to take away some firearms (since he can't touch the radical anti-gun crowd with a ten-foot-pole). If he really wanted it renewed, he would have made sure it passed.

And while a 1-year timeframe may not be enough to judge, we still have statistical data from the entire time before the AWB. I can't cite them from memory (I'm sure I can find them if you want them), but from what I recall, "assault" weapons weren't particularly dangerous (statistically) prior to the ban.

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 03:21 PM
I'll start with a topic I'm pretty passionate about: gun control. I think that our founding fathers intended for an armed civilian populace to make sure that Washington realized where the power of the government came from. Because of this, I think the founding fathers would have wanted us to have firearms comparable to those of the military - that is, banning guns because they have no 'practical' purpose is inherently unconstitutional. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was intended to protect the rights of all Americans.

Agreed.


Bill Maher did a little routine about gun control I'd like to paraphrase...

"Back when the second amendment was written, civilians with muskets were contemplating defending themselves against a military with muskets. Nowadays, the military has nuclear weapons and laser guided bombs. The days of muskets are over".

Maher implied that since the military's technology has advanced beyond just having "guns", it is worthless to keep second amendment rights.

I disagree: case in point, Iraq.

The insurgents in Iraq are using nothing more than IEDs (improvised explosive devices), VBIEDs (the vehicle-borne variety of IED's), and small arms (kalashnikovs and RPG's).

While no American can legally own a rocket propelled grenade launcher, we CAN own small arms. We also CAN own, without a license, large quantities of "bomb making materials" like blasting caps, and fertilizer, used in the bombing of Oklahoma.

IMO, the insurgents in Iraq are doing pretty "well" (if you can call it that) against the US military with all of its technology. They still manage to kill and injure our soldiers.

This is, of course, only one reason why, IMO, gun control is a bad idea.

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 03:25 PM
Times change, it isnt a good idea to have thugs walking around with AK47s. Thats why there is a ban on assault rifles. The government has to have the power and ability to exercise a limited amount of control over its populace because some of the time the majority isnt capable of making proper decisions. And the government cant do that when the public is armed with military grade weaponry. Instead of having riots you would have God knows what...

Read up on the AWB.

The assault weapon ban never banned the rifles themselves, but only banned these rifles from having certain features:

If a rifle has a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, it must not have two or more of the following characteristics:

A collapsable or folding stock
A bayonet lug (when was the last time a gang-banger bayonette-d somebody)
A flash hider or muzzle suppressor
A "grenade launcher" (essentially a flash hider used to fire rifle grenades, which are themselves EXTREMELY illegal, and unlikely to be used in a crime)
A detachable magazine of over 10 rounds

An AK could STILL be bought, provided it had no bayonet lug or flash hider.

An AR-15, civvie m16, could STILL be bought, provided it had no bayonet lug, flash hider, or collapsable stock.

None of these features adds to the effectiveness of such a weapon, and some (flash suppressor) actually DEGRADE ACCURACY.

In other words, the assault weapon ban did absolutely nothing but alter the COSMETICS of such weapons.

wade1226
08-09-2005, 03:29 PM
Read up on the AWB.

*snip*

In other words, the assault weapon ban did absolutely nothing but alter the COSMETICS of such weapons.
That's the only thing I enjoyed about the AWB - the irony of it. The only people who supported it and knew much about firearms (if such a creature exists) could have only been supporting a ban on scary looking weapons.

EDIT - good points in your prior post.

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 03:34 PM
That's the only thing I enjoyed about the AWB - the irony of it. The only people who supported it and knew much about firearms (if such a creature exists) could have only been supporting a ban on scary looking weapons.

EDIT - good points in your prior post.

You snipped me...you bastard. :)

AKR
08-09-2005, 03:34 PM
Times change, it isnt a good idea to have thugs walking around with AK47s. Thats why there is a ban on assault rifles. The government has to have the power and ability to exercise a limited amount of control over its populace because some of the time the majority isnt capable of making proper decisions. And the government cant do that when the public is armed with military grade weaponry. Instead of having riots you would have God knows what...

outlawing certain weapons does not keep criminals from owning them-it keeps good citizens from owning them. do you actually think some guy who wants to rob a bank or gang bang is gonna be like, "oh gee, i really shouldn't be buying this illegal weapon out of the back of your car. that would be illegal!"

btw, IMO, the government isn't capable of making proper decisions. that is what the guns are for.

drewkowsky
08-09-2005, 03:47 PM
aye, where do you guys believe the line should be drawn in what people can and can not possess?

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 03:50 PM
outlawing certain weapons does not keep criminals from owning them-it keeps good citizens from owning them. do you actually think some guy who wants to rob a bank or gang bang is gonna be like, "oh gee, i really shouldn't be buying this illegal weapon out of the back of your car. that would be illegal!"

btw, IMO, the government isn't capable of making proper decisions. that is what the guns are for.

Great quote.

That and, "the gun is a good teacher of lessons". ;)

AKR
08-09-2005, 03:51 PM
aye, where do you guys believe the line should be drawn in what people can and can not possess?

the line? nukes. i think they'd really be an eye sore for the neighbors.

drewkowsky
08-09-2005, 03:52 PM
the line? nukes. i think they'd really be an eye sore for the neighbors.
then you would allow chemical weapons etc?

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 03:54 PM
then you would allow chemical weapons etc?

I have the know-how, and have access to the materials, to make biological weapons, which are MUCH better at wiping out a large population than chem. weapons are.

Obviously I would never do this...I'm not a terrorist.

However, whether or not someone can *legally* have something has little bearing on whether or not they will have it *illegally*. ;)

I'd draw the line at tactical weapons:

Nuclear and biological weapons are strategic weapons, not tactical weapons (usually).

Anything you could accomplish, tactically speaking, with biological or nuclear weapons, is easily accomplished with conventional weapons as well.

Should people have hand grenades? Oh well, why not. It's a tactical weapon. Can you think of anything else that could take out 5 crackheads knocking on your front door?

nat1988
08-09-2005, 03:55 PM
OK, I used to really like the R&P forum, because the members were capable of having informed debates that could possibly change someone's viewpoint. Lately, though, almost all threads (even when they start out promising) degenerate into "stupid athiest/Christian/Muslim!" or "moronic conservative/liberal!!" or "you have no ****** clue, $#^#@!!!!" threads where closed minds and insults shut down any hope of an enjoyable debate.

While I know this is probably just wishful thinking on my part, I'd like this thread to be one where civil debates can take place (about any topic in the broad R&P scope) and where people can challenge the beliefs/ideals/viewpoints of others without flaming, insulting, or generalizing.

Keep in mind, though, that having an open mind doesn't mean blindly accepting all supporting evidence as fact, because all sources should be examined for factuality, accuracy, and bias (this is mentioned specifically with the evolution/creationism debate in mind), but that if you're going to engage in a debate, you should acknowledge the possibility that you may be wrong, or that someone else may be right about a few points.

I know my rep isn't so high as to be feared by all, but in an effort to keep these debates genuine, I may warn a straying debater to cut out the insults, and I WILL neg anyone who has trouble with the basis for this thread.

And lastly, yes, I realize I'm setting up a big bullseye for all the trolls, and as much as I like feeding the trolls too, please just ignore them here; they may actually go away.

---------------------------------

Now with all that in mind, please have some entertaining, informed (and no, it's not a crime to admit you don't know everything about anything), civil debates. Feel free to bring up any topic that fits R&P.

I think this is a great idea, because my reputation has gone down the drain from debating nazis. They piss me off so much I tend to go overboard sometimes. Keep it civil like he said and we should all be fine. Most importantly accept that you don't know everything.

drewkowsky
08-09-2005, 03:58 PM
I have the know-how, and have access to the materials, to make biological weapons, which are MUCH better at wiping out a large population than chem. weapons are.

Obviously I would never do this...I'm not a terrorist.

However, whether or not someone can *legally* have something has little bearing on whether or not they will have it *illegally*. ;)
very true and good point
but to do what you mentioned you need a combination of funds, connections, or know-how as well as a certain amount of drive

I am just wondering where you draw the line at what people can buy at the corner gun store, because truthfully I have not decided my overall stance on gun control. Right now, I am sitting in somewhat of a moderate position as a hunter.

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 03:59 PM
very true and good point
but to do what you mentioned you need a combination of funds, connections, or know-how as well as a certain amount of drive

I am just wondering where you draw the line at what people can buy at the corner gun store, because truthfully I have not decided my overall stance on gun control. Right now, I am sitting in somewhat of a moderate position as a hunter.

I guess I'd draw the line at tactical weapons, as per my previous edit. :)

EDIT: I'd also say that any destructive devices, grenade launchers, grenades, rocket launchers, rockets, etc. should be regulated (as they already are).

People SHOULD, however, be able to buy all the flashbangs they want.

I don't know what's more fun than playing tag with flashbang grenades. :D (obviously joking)

LatsMakeTheMan
08-09-2005, 07:47 PM
Why the f*ck would you make a bayonette illegal when you can buy a frickin' foot long hunting knife at a sporting goods store?

*laughing at mental picture of gang-bangers performing a driveby with muskets* "Reload! Reload!"

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 07:53 PM
Why the f*ck would you make a bayonette illegal when you can buy a frickin' foot long hunting knife at a sporting goods store?

*laughing at mental picture of gang-bangers performing a driveby with muskets* "Reload! Reload!"

You can own a fully automatic AK5D in Sweden... :D

AntonToo
08-09-2005, 07:55 PM
The insurgents in Iraq are using nothing more than IEDs (improvised explosive devices), VBIEDs (the vehicle-borne variety of IED's), and small arms (kalashnikovs and RPG's).

HOLY SHT kalashnikovs and Rpgs are small arms?!?!?!?

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 08:16 PM
You can own a fully automatic AK5D in Sweden... :D

Well whoopty-f-ckin-doo for Sweden, I can't even buy ammo without getting dirty looks here in Philly! :D

EDIT:

I went to buy 9mm the other day, they wouldn't sell it to me because "[I'm] 20 years old, and 9mm is pistol ammo, and if I'm not 21, and don't have a pistol, I shouldn't be buying pistol ammo".

Well excuse me Mr. Clueless, but MAYBE, just *maybe* in some kind of conspiracy to turn a buck, somebody made a pistol caliber carbine?

In all fairness I was, in fact, buying it for a handgun. :)

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:20 PM
HOLY SHT kalashnikovs and Rpgs are small arms?!?!?!?

No, RPG's would not be considered small arms, they would be considered explosives, but Kalashnikovs would be considered small arms (even the 7,62 variant). ;)

There are small arms (which is pretty any weapon you can carry except for the grenades which are all considered explosives), artillery arms, mounted arms (which includes most artillery arms, the difference is that they are mounted steadfast and not in a gyro as tanks, armored vehicle cannons would be the same category).

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 08:24 PM
No, RPG's would not be considered small arms, they would be considered explosives, but Kalashnikovs would be considered small arms (even the 7,62 variant). ;)

There are small arms (which is pretty any weapon you can carry except for the grenades which are all considered explosives), artillery arms, mounted arms (which includes most artillery arms, the difference is that they are mounted steadfast and not in a gyro as tanks, armored vehicle cannons would be the same category).

They make AK's in 7.62 nato?

Or are you referring to 7.62x39 vs. 5.45, the AK74 round?

I know they make them in 5.56 poodleshooter.

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:28 PM
Well whoopty-f-ckin-doo for Sweden, I can't even buy ammo without getting dirty looks here in Philly! :D

EDIT:

I went to buy 9mm the other day, they wouldn't sell it to me because "[I'm] 20 years old, and 9mm is pistol ammo, and if I'm not 21, and don't have a pistol, I shouldn't be buying pistol ammo".

Well excuse me Mr. Clueless, but MAYBE, just *maybe* in some kind of conspiracy to turn a buck, somebody made a pistol caliber carbine?

In all fairness I was, in fact, buying it for a handgun. :)

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg132-e.htm

My sidearm, by choice and it was a gift, i have 80 boxes of 250 rounds.

Just thought i'd rub it in a bit. :D

And i have access to as much ammo as i please in the 5.56 caliber, free of charge. :D

Pistol caliber carbines would be light weight automatics, i have access to the standard 9 mm suitable for handguns and sub machine hand guns like the MAG or UZI, the most popular automatics around.

Man, i'd send you some but i doubt they'd get through.

I still think it's amusing though, the liberal gun laws of US and the strict gun laws of sweden, if it wanted a permit for a 9mm UZI i'd get one, well, considering that i can sign the licence myself i can get pretty much any gun that does not carry explosives (i need my good friends signature for that).

Stinker
08-09-2005, 08:31 PM
I'll start with a topic I'm pretty passionate about: gun control. I think that our founding fathers intended for an armed civilian populace to make sure that Washington realized where the power of the government came from. Because of this, I think the founding fathers would have wanted us to have firearms comparable to those of the military - that is, banning guns because they have no 'practical' purpose is inherently unconstitutional. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was intended to protect the rights of all Americans.
I hate guns but I have uneasily come to the conclusion that banning them is no solution. I mean I'm all for the legalization of drugs so it would be hypocritical of me to believe prohibition will work for anything else while asserting it's failure on drugs. Para-military organizations and weekend militia-men should be watched with great caution but not prevented from playing with their toys.

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:31 PM
They make AK's in 7.62 nato?

Or are you referring to 7.62x39 vs. 5.45, the AK74 round?

I know they make them in 5.56 poodleshooter.

The original AK 47 was 7.62x39 same as the Swedish AK4 (which was what they gave me, it was a LONG rifle, single or fully automatic, actually that is what we have on the AK5 too (the D version is special but still only has two modes of fire).

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:35 PM
http://www.4-insatspluton.se/Bilder/ak4-l.jpg

The AK4

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:39 PM
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as35-e.htm

You'll find the AK5D lower on the page.

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:45 PM
I hate guns but I have uneasily come to the conclusion that banning them is no solution. I mean I'm all for the legalization of drugs so it would be hypocritical of me to believe prohibition will work for anything else while asserting it's failure on drugs. Para-military organizations and weekend militia-men should be watched with great caution but not prevented from playing with their toys.

In Sweden the ones of us who are reservists have licenses, i also have a hunters license and a trainers licence (for military grade weaponary, light weight non explosives).

It's pretty easy to get a licence for a handgun, you just have to prove you can handle it and join a shooting club and you can have one, almost forgot you have to own a gun lock too, but that's it.

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 08:53 PM
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as35-e.htm

You'll find the AK5D lower on the page.

The AK4 looks like a G3 knockoff, and the AK5d receiver looks like that of a FAL or Sig.

I didn't get your 7.62 comment the first time around, thought you were talking about a NATO variant.

I've got a ROMAK in semi, 7.62wp, but I'm kinda bummed about its overall quality. Looks "painted", not parkerized or whatever. My mom will have this when I go to college. She's quite inaccurate, so I needed to get her something that would allow for follow-up shots, and shooting through walls if necessary, and the AR doesn't do that all too well.

That site is great, btw. I discovered it about a year ago, have been a regular browser there.

The Barak is a funky lookin gun, I was looking at a baby eagle (Jericho), just for the "Jewish Pride" factor, but all the new ones are made by Magnum Research. It's hard to get a Jericho these days.

Well, some Sayeret units use a Glock, so my first carry gun will be a glock 23 .40...still get away with the Jewish Pride to some degree! :)

Right now, I've got a few decent guns suitable for carry, but none of them I would really feel confident with.

I've got a .32 seecamp, that's too small for my big ass hands.
A .38 Charter Arms, which is also too small, but also only holds 5 rounds. No way.
And finally, a ruger p85 preban. Cool gun, inaccurate as hell though. I think it's "been around the bush" quite a bit. My godfather gave it to me. Can't seem to manage accuracy with it, though. Oh well. Will make a nice buy for somebody living in NY or NJ, where the word "preban" still has meaning. :D

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 08:58 PM
The AK4 looks like a G3 knockoff, and the AK5d receiver looks like that of a FAL or Sig.

I didn't get your 7.62 comment the first time around, thought you were talking about a NATO variant.

I've got a ROMAK in semi, 7.62wp, but I'm kinda bummed about its overall quality. Looks "painted", not parkerized or whatever. My mom will have this when I go to college. She's quite inaccurate, so I needed to get her something that would allow for follow-up shots, and shooting through walls if necessary, and the AR doesn't do that all too well.

That site is great, btw. I discovered it about a year ago, have been a regular browser there.

The Barak is a funky lookin gun, I was looking at a baby eagle (Jericho), just for the "Jewish Pride" factor, but all the new ones are made by Magnum Research. It's hard to get a Jericho these days.

Well, some Sayeret units use a Glock, so my first carry gun will be a glock 23 .40...still get away with the Jewish Pride to some degree! :)

Right now, I've got a few decent guns suitable for carry, but none of them I would really feel confident with.

I've got a .32 seecamp, that's too small for my big ass hands.
A .38 Charter Arms, which is also too small, but also only holds 5 rounds. No way.
And finally, a ruger p85 preban. Cool gun, inaccurate as hell though. I think it's "been around the bush" quite a bit. My godfather gave it to me. Can't seem to manage accuracy with it, though. Oh well. Will make a nice buy for somebody living in NY or NJ, where the word "preban" still has meaning. :D

You know your arms, the AK4 is basically a G3 but the AK5 is a bit more specialized in the different versions, the AK5D has not equivalent what so ever, well, except the MP5 but they are hardly comparable, the firepower of an AK5D will smash the MP5.

You got some pretty cool hardare there, some classics, if i'll bring the ammo, you'll bring the guns?

(only 3 boxes of 250 allowed though)

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 09:12 PM
You know your arms, the AK4 is basically a G3 but the AK5 is a bit more specialized in the different versions, the AK5D has not equivalent what so ever, well, except the MP5 but they are hardly comparable, the firepower of an AK5D will smash the MP5.

You got some pretty cool hardare there, some classics, if i'll bring the ammo, you'll bring the guns?

(only 3 boxes of 250 allowed though)

Gotta catch me when I'm in Philly bro!

NY assault weapon ban is still in effect.

The AK has the "villainous" flash hider and bayonet lug...no go on that bad boy.

The AR has a collapsible stock. I might end up putting the fixed-stock back onto it so I can keep it in my apartment.

I've got a few places around here that are OK quality, though.

Only one indoor range lets me shoot the rifles, and the outdoor range (100+ yards) only lets you load 3 shots in each mag.

Well...when the range master is there anyway. When he's not... ;)

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 09:16 PM
Gotta catch me when I'm in Philly bro!

NY assault weapon ban is still in effect.

The AK has the "villainous" flash hider and bayonet lug...no go on that bad boy.

The AR has a collapsible stock. I might end up putting the fixed-stock back onto it so I can keep it in my apartment.

I've got a few places around here that are OK quality, though.

Only one indoor range lets me shoot the rifles, and the outdoor range (100+ yards) only lets you load 3 shots in each mag.

Well...when the range master is there anyway. When he's not... ;)


How about we flash my license and give them the finger (hoping they won't look).

If i were them (standing infront of two bodyguard looking guys with lots of hardware) i'd shut up and walk away.

But seriously, we could make a weekend drive out of it. ;)

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 09:52 PM
How about we flash my license and give them the finger (hoping they won't look).

If i were them (standing infront of two bodyguard looking guys with lots of hardware) i'd shut up and walk away.

But seriously, we could make a weekend drive out of it. ;)

It doesn't help that I'm in the practice of sporting my vest there.

I don't want some douchebag popping me through the lane divider. That wouldn't be a worthy story. I'd have to make something up. :D

PowerSwede
08-09-2005, 10:03 PM
It doesn't help that I'm in the practice of sporting my vest there.

I don't want some douchebag popping me through the lane divider. That wouldn't be a worthy story. I'd have to make something up. :D

You're to big to die lie that, you need to die like, in a fight with some huge russian or something... :D

Jokes aside, i don't wanna jinx you, i hope you live forever, you are a big man in more than one way.

NuggzTheNinja
08-09-2005, 10:31 PM
You're to big to die lie that, you need to die like, in a fight with some huge russian or something... :D

Jokes aside, i don't wanna jinx you, i hope you live forever, you are a big man in more than one way.

Or in a fight with a huge skinhead. That'd be a noble cause...:)

The same goes for you bro...you've already been there and back though so I'm sure you already have had some crazy experiences.

Our outing will be a good time..."The Jewish Bodybuilding.com Medical Researcher's Shooting Club" lol...what irony. :D

Reminds me of my neighbor...a vet (animal doc, not veteran) who loves hunting.

wade1226
08-09-2005, 11:05 PM
Why the f*ck would you make a bayonette illegal when you can buy a frickin' foot long hunting knife at a sporting goods store?

*laughing at mental picture of gang-bangers performing a driveby with muskets* "Reload! Reload!"
I've been mentally laughing at my mental picture of gang-bangers performing a driveby with bayonettes.

"Stand in line, CHARGE!!! Wheel about, march!!!"

wade1226
08-09-2005, 11:17 PM
You can own a fully automatic AK5D in Sweden... :D
I'll have to come to Sweden and we can go out and see what that thing can do. I'll pay for the rounds.

powerman2000
08-10-2005, 12:23 AM
I think this is a great idea, because my reputation has gone down the drain from debating nazis. They piss me off so much I tend to go overboard sometimes. Keep it civil like he said and we should all be fine. Most importantly accept that you don't know everything.
A wonderfully mature post worthy of positive reps.

wade1226
08-10-2005, 12:25 AM
As much as I like a good ol' fashioned gun control debate, everyone, feel free to bring up any topic that fits in the R&P scope. Just keep an open mind in mind.

powerman2000
08-10-2005, 12:29 AM
As much as I like a good ol' fashioned gun control debate, everyone, feel free to bring up any topic that fits in the R&P scope. Just keep an open mind in mind.
Not so open that my brain will fall out. :D

wade1226
08-10-2005, 12:31 AM
Not so open that my brain will fall out. :D
Well, I covered that in the initial post of this thread. Now, since you've taken up a few posts of this thread, I command you to pick a topic of debate!

(did it work?)

AKR
08-10-2005, 12:35 AM
then you would allow chemical weapons etc?

i was just kidding. i don't really know where i'd draw the line, but i think citizens should be able to have quite an arsinal; what exactly that arsinal should be composed of, i do not know.

NuggzTheNinja
08-10-2005, 11:04 AM
i was just kidding. i don't really know where i'd draw the line, but i think citizens should be able to have quite an arsinal; what exactly that arsinal should be composed of, i do not know.

Some chemical weapons you wouldn't want anyway.

Most are just as dangerous to the user as they are to the target, without a proper delivery system like a missile or an artillery piece.

American soldiers in WWII found mustard gas grenades on dead Japanese soldiers. They consisted of sulphur mustard inside of a glass ball.

That's the kinda thing you don't wanna carry around in a war zone. :D

drewkowsky
08-10-2005, 11:14 AM
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!!!
k

nat1988
08-10-2005, 11:17 AM
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!!!
k
Does it bother you?

wade1226
08-10-2005, 02:50 PM
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!!!
k
Are you for or against tougher laws against illegal immigration?

NuggzTheNinja
08-10-2005, 02:54 PM
Are you for or against tougher laws against illegal immigration?

I'm pretty moderate, but leaning toward stronger enforcement of the laws already in place.

See, a lot of these illegal immigrants take jobs that nobody wants: meat packing, landscaping, sh-t like that.

I don't think any illegals are taking jobs away from Americans, as nobody really wants these jobs anyway besides illegals. What they ARE doing, is getting married and leeching off of social security.

We should make military service obligatory to all those found crossing the border.

You get caught crossing the border? Here's a rifle motherf-cker, you're going to Fallujah.

wade1226
08-10-2005, 02:59 PM
I'm pretty moderate, but leaning toward stronger enforcement of the laws already in place.

See, a lot of these illegal immigrants take jobs that nobody wants: meat packing, landscaping, sh-t like that.

I don't think any illegals are taking jobs away from Americans, as nobody really wants these jobs anyway besides illegals. What they ARE doing, is getting married and leeching off of social security.
While I agree somewhat with what you're saying (especially about them leeching off of social programs), I think the problem of illegal immigration is a double whammy. Sure, they're taking jobs that nobody wants, but we wind up paying unemployment benefits, etc. for those who would rather not have a job than take the crappy jobs. I guess some Americans have some feeling of 'entitlement' inborn in them, but I think if a job is out there, no matter how crappy it is, they should take that job rather than let the social security net pay them.

NuggzTheNinja
08-10-2005, 03:04 PM
While I agree somewhat with what you're saying (especially about them leeching off of social programs), I think the problem of illegal immigration is a double whammy. Sure, they're taking jobs that nobody wants, but we wind up paying unemployment benefits, etc. for those who would rather not have a job than take the crappy jobs. I guess some Americans have some feeling of 'entitlement' inborn in them, but I think if a job is out there, no matter how crappy it is, they should take that job rather than let the social security net pay them.

Agreed entirely.

Wade for president, 2008! :D

I must reiterate, however, "Here's a rifle motherf-cker, you're going to Fallujah". ;)

run213
08-10-2005, 03:42 PM
The problem with illegal immigrants taking jobs that no one wants is that it hurts our poorer communities. I have nothing against the illegals there just trying to better there lives. It is the big companies and the political partys that are to blame. with out illegals the companys would be forced to pay higher wages to US citezens so these jobs that are now undesireable,become more attractive to the average person. No one will flip burgers for 5dollars an hour but they will for 10 or 12. That is how the under class of america grows but if we allow these companies to pay illegals under the table then our wage scale will never grow. The dems want illegals because if they give them free benifits then they will get there vote they are essentially trying to buy elections with tax payers money. the GOP wont do anything about illegal immigration because there afraid of being called racist and Xenophobic. The only people who really lose are the poor people in this country who happen to be citascins. That is how i see it

Diesel66
08-10-2005, 04:03 PM
Times change, it isnt a good idea to have thugs walking around with AK47s. Thats why there is a ban on assault rifles. Thugs do not obey the laws anyways. Banning the citizens the ability to protect themselves is a crime. Before 1934 any citizen could buy a fully automatic weapon from the local store and there was no stories of massive killings outside of gangs killing each other.
The government has to have the power and ability to exercise a limited amount of control over its populace because some of the time the majority isnt capable of making proper decisions. And the government cant do that when the public is armed with military grade weaponry. Instead of having riots you would have God knows what...
Democracy ? Liberty ? What people seem to forget is the Public had better weapons then the British Army. Many Americans had rifles while the British Army had only muskets.


aye, where do you guys believe the line should be drawn in what people can and can not possess?
All small arms. IF an individual breaks the laws, throw him in prison.




Only one indoor range lets me shoot the rifles, and the outdoor range (100+ yards) only lets you load 3 shots in each mag.

Well...when the range master is there anyway. When he's not... ;)

What the hell ? Crazy communists

NuggzTheNinja
08-10-2005, 04:09 PM
Thugs do not obey the laws anyways. Banning the citizens the ability to protect themselves is a crime. Before 1934 any citizen could buy a fully automatic weapon from the local store and there was no stories of massive killings outside of gangs killing each other.
Democracy ? Liberty ? What people seem to forget is the Public had better weapons then the British Army. Many Americans had rifles while the British Army had only muskets.


All small arms. IF an individual breaks the laws, throw him in prison.



What the hell ? Crazy communists

Well there's a lot of long-distance shooters there, who don't want me and my buddies spraying 50 yard targets with AK and AR fire, while they're trying to nitpick their bullseye. ;)

EDIT: it DOES, however, give me an opportunity to practice my swift mag reloads.

With an AK they take a big of practice. F-cking "must-be-seated-to-engage" mags.

nat1988
08-10-2005, 11:35 PM
Hey man, if illegal immigrants are the only ones who are going to cut my grass every day, and enjoy doing it, bring em in. Most immigrants come here to escape poverty and live the equal lives they deserve. A small minority get involved in crime and become pests to our society. If anything, these are the ones who should be sent to the army, atleast they will be put to good use, and truly show their will to become american. But the majority of immigrants are super friendly, and seem to be fine making minimum wage. So why not let a few of them in?

nat1988
08-10-2005, 11:40 PM
The problem with illegal immigrants taking jobs that no one wants is that it hurts our poorer communities. I have nothing against the illegals there just trying to better there lives. It is the big companies and the political partys that are to blame. with out illegals the companys would be forced to pay higher wages to US citezens so these jobs that are now undesireable,become more attractive to the average person. No one will flip burgers for 5dollars an hour but they will for 10 or 12. That is how the under class of america grows but if we allow these companies to pay illegals under the table then our wage scale will never grow. The dems want illegals because if they give them free benifits then they will get there vote they are essentially trying to buy elections with tax payers money. the GOP wont do anything about illegal immigration because there afraid of being called racist and Xenophobic. The only people who really lose are the poor people in this country who happen to be citascins. That is how i see it

Interesting perspective. The question becomes is do we prevent helpless people in 3rd world countries from having access to decent lifestyles to help poor americans make better wages? Hey if immigrants is what it takes to elec dems, then we should be shipping them in by the millions. lol

drewkowsky
08-13-2005, 05:08 PM
I'm pretty moderate, but leaning toward stronger enforcement of the laws already in place.

this is close to my stance as well

I have no problem with immigration, it'd just be nice if they signed the guestbook on the way over

also, I am concerned with possible security risks engendered by illegal immigration

wade1226
08-13-2005, 07:14 PM
also, I am concerned with possible security risks engendered by illegal immigration
I agree. Even if someone doesn't give a rat's ass about the illegal immigrants who jump the fence (or swim the river) to get in the nation and take a crappy job for less than minimum wage, I would think he should be very concerned that anyone (with any motive) is capable of coming into the country without anyone knowing about it.