ITT Sarien "finishes" his AK-47 Build

[Epinephrine]

Hey if you have a specific reason to be using these weapons then fine. Ranchers have a need for it. People who live out in the wild and need to fend off bears need it. Police officers need it too.

But really, after a certain point it's kind of ridiculous. It's absolutely true that countries that don't allow easy access to guns have gun deaths on the order of magnitudes less than you have in America. Less guns = vastly less gun deaths. Countries without easy access to guns also don't have more crime either.

Yes weapons are kind of cool in that 6-year old boy wonderment kind of way, but just as the average person doesn't need to own a jet fighter (but can legitimately find a jet fighter kind of cool), they don't need a gun either.

But hey it's your country. I just think it's weird and will never understand this gun culture, nevermind Vatican's weird and nonsensical rant about Mao and Stalin.


We actually have the same problems here in Canada, where gun violence is prominent in big cities where people don't need guns, but people living in the boonies keep the government from making it harder to get guns.

[kthx]

Nonsensical? Hes right, most dictators tend to try to take away the civilians weaponry so that their regime or army are the only ones who have weapons, it makes them much easier to control if they can't defend themselves. Besides what is wrong with having something that you find interesting? Do you own a TV? yes. Do you need to have a TV? no. Some people enjoy watching TV and some people enjoy shooting and owning weapons. It is no different than someone who enjoys collecting comic books, stamps, pennies or whatever. Besides, shooting is even an Olympic sport, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that you can or should look down on people who own guns for whatever reason, that is just ignorant.

And once again you don't understand anything. 99% of the time the people who legally buy weapons through a gun store or an auction are the ones who aren't planning on doing anything stupid with it, if you are planning on buying a weapon in order to commit a crime with a weapon you aren't going to go buy that weapon under your name because that gun is tagged to you, you are going to get a gun on the black market that has either been stolen or is old enough to not have tagging. So by limiting or restricting the guns that people can buy from a legitimate store you are only stopping the people who want guns for good reasons from getting them, it isn't hindering the criminals at all.

[Vatican Assassin]

It's weird and nonsensical to bring up gun control and dictatorships with the route America is taking now? Have you been paying attention to the loss of liberty through fear in my country? Isn't that how dictatorships start? And how is one sentence a "rant"? Do you know what a rant is? Here's some help:

to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: The demagogue ranted for hours.

Honestly, the thought of owning an AK is weird to me, too. The right to own a gun is not, however. The people who wrote the US Constitution did so with the knowledge that the greatest threat to liberty will come from within, i.e., from corruption within our own government. So if you read the first ten ammendments, you'll see that, for instance, it does not say "American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms," it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now this is a huge legal difference as I'm sure you know Epi, and there is a reason for this particular wording.

Essentially, the founders did not give people rights, they put restrictions on the government. What I mean to say is, the constitution does not say what we CAN do, it says what the government CANNOT do. Now, is it really nonsensical to entertain the cold truth that power corrupts, nations fall from within, and evil people do tend to rise to places of power if they are unchecked? And please, for my sake, don't start defining what a "well-regulated militia" is, I really don't have the energy to go there. If you think Stalin would have had an easy time killing 30 million Russians if they had a well-regulated militia to balance his dictatorial powers over the military, then I could see where it wouldn't make any sense to you.

[kthx]

On top of this, Epi is a doctor correct?

http://www.naturalnews.com/021206.html

More people die each year due to malpractice than through getting shot, pretty interesting statistic for a doctor who is worried about guns.

Also if your interested to learn more about gun control and what is going on in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

So basically the District of Columbia decided that people were only allowed to have certain guns if they were disassembled or locked which basically destroys the guns use if someone were to break into your house, unless you had time to get the key and unlock the trigger lock or assemble the weapon before the criminal managed to find his way to wherever you were. 5 to 4.. one single vote is all that found that such a law was stupid and asinine. I realize you don't live in America but you should really read up on subjects before you try to spout your supposed knowledge of them.

[genocidal]

It's weird and nonsensical to bring up gun control and dictatorships with the route America is taking now? Have you been paying attention to the loss of liberty through fear in my country? Isn't that how dictatorships start?

Paranoid much? I'm as saddened as anyone about the loss of liberty in this country but you have to understand that it goes in cycles and doesn't mean we're about to be taken over by Dictator Obama, or Dictator Cheney, or Fuhrer Limbaugh.

Honestly, the thought of owning an AK is weird to me, too. The right to own a gun is not, however. The people who wrote the US Constitution did so with the knowledge that the greatest threat to liberty will come from within, i.e., from corruption within our own government. So if you read the first ten ammendments, you'll see that, for instance, it does not say "American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms," it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now this is a huge legal difference as I'm sure you know Epi, and there is a reason for this particular wording.

Oh yeah, what's that reason? (I always like it when people speak for our forefathers' intent.)

Essentially, the founders did not give people rights, they put restrictions on the government. What I mean to say is, the constitution does not say what we CAN do, it says what the government CANNOT do. Now, is it really nonsensical to entertain the cold truth that power corrupts, nations fall from within, and evil people do tend to rise to places of power if they are unchecked?

This is pretty muddled and generally inaccurate. First, the Bill of Rights were written to protect the citizens, which you could say is the same as telling the government what it can't do to its people. However, the 10th Amendment meant that, in actuality, the government could do whatever they wanted to at the state or local level to any of its citizens. The 14th Amendment changed everything and extended all Constitutional protections to its citizens at the state level as well.

The distinction you make has no bearing - whether the citizens have a right to bear arms or the government doesn't have the right to take arms away from its citizens the functional result is the same, especially seen through the prism of the 14th Amendment.

And please, for my sake, don't start defining what a "well-regulated militia" is, I really don't have the energy to go there. If you think Stalin would have had an easy time killing 30 million Russians if they had a well-regulated militia to balance his dictatorial powers over the military, then I could see where it wouldn't make any sense to you.

Stalin didn't outright kill 30 million people, he worked them to death. There's a major difference and if you think any of that kind of shit would go down in America then I feel bad for you because you must lead a paranoid and miserable life.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i think the disagreement here is one of form vs. function. some people see images of ak's being fired into the air, fully auto... some people see an affordable, easy-to-maintain, high-caliber rifle.

and yeah, i felt kinda gangster popping an alligator with it.

[Sarien]

Hey if you have a specific reason to be using these weapons then fine.

But the ideal of a free society is that it encourages its citizenry to reach for their full measure of happiness. Not simply the things they "need", but activities and possessions and lifestyles that are of value to each person's "pursuit of happiness". This is completely outside of the Second Amendment to the US constitution. It's a deeper issue.

But really, after a certain point it's kind of ridiculous.

And here is the meat of it really. Just because you believe it ridiculous, doesn't mean that all people do. Just because you choose to live your life by your principles, why should I be forced to? Do you simply believe that your way is the only right way? With the freedom of choice you guarantee that each may live as they see fit, with the provision that should they cause harm to another they will be punished. When you remove that choice, you begin to oppress a section of your society, for the comfort (note: not safety, just comfort) of others. If you can't see that is wrong-headed and a horrible thing to start, then there's nothing on earth that will dissuade you from your vantage point. You win.

But hey it's your country. I just think it's weird and will never understand this gun culture, nevermind Vatican's weird and nonsensical rant about Mao and Stalin.

What Vatican was trying to point out. As well as Chairman Mao (While Mao did not institute Gun Control, there is absolutely zero question that an unarmed populace in the face of the reversal of the Hundred Flowers Campaign led to the large numbers of swiftly silenced dissidents) And Stalin Too. (Again, Stalin himself did not present Gun Control, but merely took advantage of the unarmed populace)

We actually have the same problems here in Canada, where gun violence is prominent in big cities where people don't need guns, but people living in the boonies keep the government from making it harder to get guns.

Because when you make it "harder to get guns", you don't make it "harder to get guns for the people committing your inner city violence", all you really accomplish is to make it harder for people that are willing to obey the law that says they cannot own firearms. Listen, Epi. You know that I'm not a kid, I'm 33 years old. It should be fairly obvious to most observers now that I am somewhat knowledgeable about firearms. Take this to heart: The people that are willing to go to a store, and fill out the paperwork to get a gun, are not the ones causing your society ill. It's the back alley deals, and illegal sales that are doing it. And you can't legalize that away, because it's already illegal. Enforcement is a viable option, but try putting emphasis on enforcement of illegally sold weapons when about 3/4 of a police budget is put forward towards a losing war on drugs.

[kthx]

Thanks for re-reposting what I said more eloquently.

Check and Mate.

[Squeezer]

Hey if you have a specific reason to be using these weapons then fine. Ranchers have a need for it. People who live out in the wild and need to fend off bears need it. Police officers need it too.

But really, after a certain point it's kind of ridiculous. It's absolutely true that countries that don't allow easy access to guns have gun deaths on the order of magnitudes less than you have in America. Less guns = vastly less gun deaths. Countries without easy access to guns also don't have more crime either.

Yes weapons are kind of cool in that 6-year old boy wonderment kind of way, but just as the average person doesn't need to own a jet fighter (but can legitimately find a jet fighter kind of cool), they don't need a gun either.

But hey it's your country. I just think it's weird and will never understand this gun culture, nevermind Vatican's weird and nonsensical rant about Mao and Stalin.


We actually have the same problems here in Canada, where gun violence is prominent in big cities where people don't need guns, but people living in the boonies keep the government from making it harder to get guns.

This is essentially a condensed version of what I was trying to say.

Most people living in modern society do not need a gun. Since guns aren't fucking toys, I find it hard to justify allowing the sale of firearms for personal use. They're just unnecessary.

[kthx]

Modern Society? Obviously you don't realize that crime rates actually increase every year, guns aren't toys you are right, and most sensible people who legally buy and own guns are sensible people. But you have to realize that deciding to break into someones house isn't a childish prank either. Cars aren't toys but people drink and drive, should we outlaw alcohol? You say you smoke, and I am sure you drive around after smoking, that is much more irresponsible than owning a gun and knowing how to operate it. So once again your posts are ignorant and irrational considering you indulge in far more risky behaviors than the people arguing about the right to own a firearm in this thread. Wait till someone breaks into your apartment, or you or someone in your family is robbed at gun point by someone owning and illegal gun and then you might understand the point in owning this "toy".

Anyways you can't be for one form of control from the government in terms of guns because you feel they aren't a necessity and then be for the legalization of drugs when you know people are going to be operating vehicles while using them. Drugs and alcohol aren't a necessity in modern life but and neither of them are a toy either. So basically you are just ignorant of the situation, maybe you should look at the stats from people who die under the influence of drugs and alcohol while driving compared to people who get shot and killed from gun accidents and misfires.

[Jerome Scuggs]

most people in modern society do not need mcdonald's, starbucks, faygo, subspace, and the sham-wow. let's ban them as well.

[Squeezer]

Modern Society? Obviously you don't realize that crime rates actually increase every year, guns aren't toys you are right, and most sensible people who legally buy and own guns are sensible people.

No. Firearm related crimes in America increase every year. Oddly enough we're one of the few countries that expressly states in our constitution the right to own killing machines. I agree that many people that use the legal recourses to buy guns are sensible people, but even sensible people can make mistakes. Guns lead to a more reactionary and defensive mindset. After all, why would you need protection if you didn't feel endangered?

But you have to realize that deciding to break into someones house isn't a childish prank either. Cars aren't toys but people drink and drive, should we outlaw alcohol? You say you smoke, and I am sure you drive around after smoking, that is much more irresponsible than owning a gun and knowing how to operate it.

I don't own a car, so putting your stupid assumption aside these are not fair comparisons. Guns=hot steel shot from them. They are built to destroy and kill things. Cars are transportation. People do not step into a car with the intent to kill. They have the ability to harm, sure, but I doubt most drunk people anticipate slamming their front end into a lightpole when they turn over the keys. Is it irresponsible to drive under the influence? Absolutely. But cars and guns are incomparable in terms of how they kill people.

So once again your posts are ignorant and irrational considering you indulge in far more risky behaviors than the people arguing about the right to own a firearm in this thread. Wait till someone breaks into your apartment, or you or someone in your family is robbed at gun point by someone owning and illegal gun and then you might understand the point in owning this "toy".

I have had my apartment broken into. I've also been held up at gun point. I have an immense respect for guns and just because I don't own one doesn't mean I'm not aware of their usefulness in that situation, I just feel that that isn't sufficient reason to keep guns around. America's murder rate is through the fucking roof for the reason you just listed. People buy guns to protect themselves from people with guns and pretty soon everyone's armed but nobody is safe. I feel like we simply disagree here. You figure an armed and trained citizenry is the best way to protect our country's inhabitants and I feel that removing weapons capable of creating immediate mass amounts of violence from untrained hands are will lead to less crime.

Anyways you can't be for one form of control from the government in terms of guns because you feel they aren't a necessity and then be for the legalization of drugs when you know people are going to be operating vehicles while using them. Drugs and alcohol aren't a necessity in modern life but and neither of them are a toy either. So basically you are just ignorant of the situation, maybe you should look at the stats from people who die under the influence of drugs and alcohol while driving compared to people who get shot and killed from gun accidents and misfires.

Well, I did just that and guess what? According to a NYTimes article below, about 81 people die each day due to gunfire in the United States (click me). If you do a little bit of math, that comes out to about 29,565 each year. That's just the deathrate, that isn't even including the impact of guns on Violent crime (considering most cars can't hold someone up). Meanwhile this site reports that in 2006 13,470 people were killed in America from alcohol related accidents. So actually guns kill more people in this country and though I didn't check, I would assume guns kill more worldwide as well.

Secondly drug legislation and firearm legislation are not related. Rather than addressing the questions I posed, you're making straw man comparisons. Pointing the barell of a gun at someone is different than pointing a joint their way. You make the choice to take drugs (in most cases) and they operate solely within your body. Unless you do something stupid, like go driving, you aren't harming anyone or anything but your own body. The same applies to firing a gun, except when you decide to take that into a crowd full of people things get messy. Holding a gun allows you to subject others to your role, having drugs makes you a loser (like me!). Come back when you have better comparisons or actual statistics to back yourself up.

Oh and Houston isn't that fucking hard. Get over yourself. It's not even in the top ten most dangerous cities I've visited.

Nonsensical? Hes right, most dictators tend to try to take away the civilians weaponry so that their regime or army are the only ones who have weapons, it makes them much easier to control if they can't defend themselves.

Do you have any factual basis for this or are you just talking out of your ass? While it's true that whoever controls the military (aka the most guns) usually rises to power, but where did you get the notion that they run around stealing guns from people?

Besides what is wrong with having something that you find interesting? Do you own a TV? yes. Do you need to have a TV? no. Some people enjoy watching TV and some people enjoy shooting and owning weapons. It is no different than someone who enjoys collecting comic books, stamps, pennies or whatever. Besides, shooting is even an Olympic sport, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that you can or should look down on people who own guns for whatever reason, that is just ignorant.

My television doesn't fire projectiles at speeds fast enough to kill things, therefore it is different. You treat guns like they're used for everything but killing people. Look, it's for hunting, look it's for sport! Look, almost 30,000 people die every year because of guns! I can already see you replying with "b-b-but what about the responsible people, why are they punished?" They're punished because they're just as harmful shooting people in order to provide a sense of protection. Guns give you an indelible right over another person. They allow control that should never be permitted.

And once again you don't understand anything. 99% of the time the people who legally buy weapons through a gun store or an auction are the ones who aren't planning on doing anything stupid with it, if you are planning on buying a weapon in order to commit a crime with a weapon you aren't going to go buy that weapon under your name because that gun is tagged to you, you are going to get a gun on the black market that has either been stolen or is old enough to not have tagging. So by limiting or restricting the guns that people can buy from a legitimate store you are only stopping the people who want guns for good reasons from getting them, it isn't hindering the criminals at all.

Serial numbers mean very little when your only purpose is to rack up a high body count. And since when did you become some kind of regulatory force. YOU ARE A CITIZEN NOT A FUCKING SOLDIER. If you want to shoot guns at things then go join the miliatry. When it comes to matters that concern civilians, we have a police force. They do a shitty job but that's far and away a better idea than sicking people with your mindset on "criminals."

[Squeezer]

most people in modern society do not need mcdonald's, starbucks, faygo, subspace, and the sham-wow. let's ban them as well.

yes, because all of these things are used explicitly to kill people. As in, these corporations and items came into being with the expressed intention of being used to kill things, right?

Not to mention the loophole he exploited was immediately closed by the Governor, so it's not like he could even do it today.

There will be other loopholes. Or someone can simply buy a gun illegially and pass it off as legal since carrying a gun at all times is somehow culturally acceptable. As long as a person isn't carrying a fucking AK into the mall, no one thinks anything of it.

people forget that no matter what technology we have... your food still comes from places like my ranch. and is protected by my guns.

Bullshit. Fear of retribution keeps most people from breaking laws. They know they'll go to jail or worse. We deferred power to a higher being for a reason, they happen to be pretty good at maintaining order. YOU don't keep those robbers away with your awesome Rambo skills, people stay away because they fear recourse from their actions from a much higher power. Otherwise they'd just get ten guys so that it doesn't matter what kind of gun you own.

Along with the power to self-govern, we defer our right to protect ourselves to a being that has superior technology and capabilities to that of the individual.

[Squeezer]

This is bad logic.

you're right. That is faulty reasoning considering the fact that there are problems that need to be micro-managed and handled using force less than that of atomic weapons.

My point was more toward the argument that it's kind of pointless to maintain a well armed military when the world could annihilate itself in 30 minutes. You would think we would have stopped killing each other for fear of this amazing power ending all the mundane shit we've worked so hard for, but no, we remain just as aggressive and fiercely tied to any sort of technology that can give the upper hand.

I guess my point was more toward militarization than civil issues.

edit: It was a roundabout way to get at the atomic question. What kind of violence can man really inflict on each other when the scale has been so dramatically changed? since you seem to advocate gun rights and don't have belligerent views, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[DoTheFandango]

i think i caused this debate, and totally didn't mean to.

whoops.