ITT Sarien "finishes" his AK-47 Build

[Jerome Scuggs]

haha, of course that's how you would react to something like that.' They Do No Wrong. my shotgun was in fact under my bed, but as a citizen i have responsibility and must make moral decisions. maybe i should join the force so i can do whatever i goddamn please.

[genocidal]

Epi's hobby is being a Chinese wimpy cultural stereotype and I hate it.:annoyed:

[Jerome Scuggs]

he's asian? wtf? they lay eggs.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

The only problem I have with gun owners is really just a subset of the group--the ones who think they should be able to abridge the rights of others even though they wave the fuck out of the "I can do what I want, stay the fuck out of my business" banner.

The problem is that they're an extremely vocal subset: they're the analogues of the burnout pothead subset of the marijuana-smoking group.

[Epinephrine]

he's asian? wtf? they lay eggs.

Thousand year old eggs kukuku

[Epinephrine]

The only problem I have with gun owners is really just a subset of the group--the ones who think they should be able to abridge the rights of others even though they wave the fuck out of the "I can do what I want, stay the fuck out of my business" banner.

The problem is that they're an extremely vocal subset: they're the analogues of the burnout pothead subset of the marijuana-smoking group.

I'm going to agree with Conc here. Despite what my messages seemed, I'm not personally attacking Sarien. Hey I like guns as much as the next guy, the only thing I remember about my Washington DC trip in grade 10 was when we visited the FBI building and one of the agents unloaded a fully automatic carbine for us which was mega cool.

I just think that the society has much more to gain if guns are not allowed then if it is. Unfortunately if there are too many exceptions, then it won't work which is why even people who are responsible like Sarien would lose out.

It's the work of all those super vocal guys who are their one man vigilante teams, or those who are not yet murders or wife beaters just yet (so they can legally buy a gun now), but will be in the future (and there's too many of these people out there) that make the whole thing stink.

[Jerome Scuggs]

so you advocate total disarmament? or do you think the police and military should have weapons, with citizens being unarmed?

[paradise!]

1) im pretty sure noone here has mentioned hunting. only target shooting, etc.

2) ever tried to shoot an alligator with a .22? the fact that the bullet ricochets off its skin would make using a less powerful weapon pretty dangerous.

it seems like the more rational posts in this thread come from people who do, in fact, own and use guns. the only danger here comes from the lack of education.

LoL now that I am fully sobered I see how really retarded this post is. Tell me, how can you declare rationality based on a guy declaring how cool it is to own a killing machine. Classic case of the ingroup bias, oh yes jerome, I sadly am too naive to understand the importance of killing machines, oh poo. I simply cannot understand the desperate NEED to find alligators and shoot them. I just cannot grasp that.

It's rational because you, a gun-owner and user as well, can understand and see eye-to-eye the needs of the op. And you seem to confuse my dissenting opinion and lack of gun bravado with forum "danger".

funny.

[Epinephrine]

so you advocate total disarmament? or do you think the police and military should have weapons, with citizens being unarmed?

Yes only a civilian controlled police and military force (via democracy) would have access to guns, which is more or less like how it is in most countries in the world. But I know you're an anarchist so you'd never put up with that.

I realize the practical complications of taking away guns from collectors and so on, and basically I know that won't happen in real life. But owning guns would be like owning swords/daggers currently... I'm sure sometime in the past lots of people had swords, but now only rare collectors do and they have no idea how to use or sharpen em even if they have swords.

[Squeezer]

Yes only a civilian controlled police and military force (via democracy) would have access to guns, which is more or less like how it is in most countries in the world. But I know you're an anarchist so you'd never put up with that.

I realize the practical complications of taking away guns from collectors and so on, and basically I know that won't happen in real life. But owning guns would be like owning swords/daggers currently... I'm sure sometime in the past lots of people had swords, but now only rare collectors do and they have no idea how to use or sharpen em even if they have swords.

I'm just going to shorten my post and say I agree with this.

I believe D1s said earlier that we need people that are armed, responsible and trained to protect from those that are armed, irresponsible and untrained. I see a police force/military as a far more effective way to achieve that.

My comprimise is that the police remain armed and can intercede should any of you decide to be dumb with the weapon. However, lives will still be lost in that situation and I find it kind of appaling that everyone is willing to accept that when the simple solution is to eliminate this woeful and unfair technology.

[Galleleo]

We need to instill the ways of the samurai, honour, loyalty, bravery and respect!

Also, kick ass katanas and masks and outfits and shit.

Also, makes killing a lot more up close and personal.

[kthx]

Woeful technology... idiot.

Anyways I do agree about war with swords and arrows, it was much more valuable and the value of a trained and skilled man was much more than it is today in war. See Boxer Rebellion etc.

[Squeezer]

Woeful technology... idiot.

Anyways I do agree about war with swords and arrows, it was much more valuable and the value of a trained and skilled man was much more than it is today in war. See Boxer Rebellion etc.

it is a woeful technology. It's responsible for more deaths historically than any other technology. It was created for the sole purpose of inflicting harm on whatever target it's pointed at.

whatever man. Guns will never be illegial in your backwards ass state, so what do you care anyway? And a military grade sniper is a far more valuable tool for war than an able knight dressed in armor. We could have a whole other argument about this.

[kthx]

Yes but was was more beautiful back then, techniques, tactics and skill played a much bigger role in the military back then than it does today. That is why civilizations who had military tactics such as the phalanx and other such things pretty much dominated everywhere.

Anyways you might as well be whining and crying about the fact that people invented swords, or maces which were also tools that people created to kill people with. You also forget that guns stop atrocities as often as they cause them.

[Izor]

So you believe people will be responsible with guns and I don't.

everyone that i know that gets a gun (thats a LOT of people fyi) is responsible with their weapon. Most people understand that its pretty serious to have something like an M16/M4/9 mm so they dont act like idiots when they get them. The people that would be irresponsible with the weapons and use them to attack other people would get them anyway. Laws have never stopped criminals