Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:46 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
and what weapons you can buy should be limited.


No they should not.

It does not really matter, people will still get them if they want them. All it will do is turn law abiding citizens into criminals and give us a higher body count to hear about on the evening news.

We got a while to stockpile them anyway before he gets a chance to molest the second amend.


So you should be able to have armor piercing, fully automatic assault weapons sitting around your home, with no background checks so anyone can buy them. I have nothing against semi auto rifles and pistols, but anyone buying any kind of weapon is dangerous. A country would destroy itself if you let the NRA have it's way.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:24 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
So you should be able to have armor piercing, fully automatic assault weapons sitting around your home, with no background checks so anyone can buy them.


Uh please do tell me where you can already buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check among other things.

From a quick google:

"To own a machine gun you need to find one.... Pay for it .... Fill out the form 4 , pay your $200 tax and wait for ATF approval.... And pick it up from your FFL/SOT ...."



Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
A country would destroy itself if you let the NRA have it's way.


Back up that claim?


This is what I do not want to see happen in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

What happened after after handguns were banned in the UK?

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm


I realize no one in the near future will attempt to disarm all of America. However if you let them take a little they will eventually take a lot. That video I posted above is a perfect example.

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 19045
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:02 pm 
 

Ritual_Suicide wrote:
I wonder if Obama himself would pass this test.
:scratch:

Maybe that's the point.

Quote:
If this is what he doing to his Cabinet, what in gods name is he going to do to us Americans?


There's nothing wrong with executing a thorough background check. It isn't like he's violating their personal rights - they WANTED TO BE IN HIS CABINET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Fright Night 1985

Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:27 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
So you should be able to have armor piercing, fully automatic assault weapons sitting around your home, with no background checks so anyone can buy them.


Uh please do tell me where you can already buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check among other things.

From a quick google:

"To own a machine gun you need to find one.... Pay for it .... Fill out the form 4 , pay your $200 tax and wait for ATF approval.... And pick it up from your FFL/SOT ...."



Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
A country would destroy itself if you let the NRA have it's way.


Back up that claim?


This is what I do not want to see happen in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

What happened after after handguns were banned in the UK?

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm


I realize no one in the near future will attempt to disarm all of America. However if you let them take a little they will eventually take a lot. That video I posted above is a perfect example.


My point is that the NRA wants it so that people can buy armor piercing bullets and assault weapons without background check. No one fully needs fully automatic anything, what one can do with a bolt action rifle is good enough, and no one will try to ban that, without risking full blown rebellion. Which Obama, and all but the most left leaning liberals, will do.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:49 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
My point is that the NRA wants it so that people can buy armor piercing bullets and assault weapons without background check. No one fully needs fully automatic anything, what one can do with a bolt action rifle is good enough, and no one will try to ban that, without risking full blown rebellion. Which Obama, and all but the most left leaning liberals, will do.


The NRA has said a lot of things but I am still having trouble finding an article where they said they want background checks lifted on Assault Rifles and armor piercing bullets in particular. Not saying it does not exist can you just provide me with an official statement from the NRA?

Besides I am all for background checks. Bolt action only? No thank you I think I will pass on that.

Again complete disarmament is an impossibility, Even if they manage to make it illegal to own certain firearms all they will do is create a very dangerous black market. There are already far to many of them in circulation and even more can get into the country easily.

I currently do not own any fully automatic weapons (I do have quite a few friends who do however). Among other assorted shotguns I currently only keep out a 38 special revolver and a 30 cal carbine by my bed. I do think however within the coming months I will be making several new purcahses "just in case" :P.

They are quite welcome to attempt and take them from me.

edit: This says it well enough

Image

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:42 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
My point is that the NRA wants it so that people can buy armor piercing bullets and assault weapons without background check. No one fully needs fully automatic anything, what one can do with a bolt action rifle is good enough, and no one will try to ban that, without risking full blown rebellion. Which Obama, and all but the most left leaning liberals, will do.


The NRA has said a lot of things but I am still having trouble finding an article where they said they want background checks lifted on Assault Rifles and armor piercing bullets in particular. Not saying it does not exist can you just provide me with an official statement from the NRA?

Besides I am all for background checks. Bolt action only? No thank you I think I will pass on that.

Again complete disarmament is an impossibility, Even if they manage to make it illegal to own certain firearms all they will do is create a very dangerous black market. There are already far to many of them in circulation and even more can get into the country easily.

I currently do not own any fully automatic weapons (I do have quite a few friends who do however). Among other assorted shotguns I currently only keep out a 38 special revolver and a 30 cal carbine by my bed. I do think however within the coming months I will be making several new purcahses "just in case" :P.

They are quite welcome to attempt and take them from me.

edit: This says it well enough

Image


No ones gonna take your guns away from you. Guns are just collectibles to many people. I can't see the rational though behind having a huge person arsenal for self protection. I for one have a 22 simi auto rifle and a sawed off shot gun in the house which is more than enough for self protection. Really the only thing I need for home security is the sawed off double burl, what could be more efficient and effective. You can't miss with it and you get 2 shots in case you do. I highly doubt I will ever use it even still.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:53 pm 
 

Avaddons_blood wrote:
No ones gonna take your guns away from you. Guns are just collectibles to many people. I can't see the rational though behind having a huge person arsenal for self protection.


I have to agree I do not think anything major will happen with it within Obama's term (bigger fish to fry and all that). I also do not think he is stupid enough to assume we would give them up as easily as the Brits did.

Us peckerwood hillbillies only have our guns or religion you know ;)

The rational for me at least is because I can, I am still young (only 20) but I plan on having quite an armory before I am done :P.

The reasons vary greatly I suppose, some are collectors/shooters and then you can also go into the people (my friends and neighbors who own the automatics fall into this category) who believe they should maintain a vast arsenal so that if the government ever threatens individual freedom they will be there to keep it in check.

That is the main reason I am not worried with someone attempting to impose to great of control on firearms so soon, there are already thousands of armed Americans who possess the mentality of "Come to take my guns and I will give you my bullets"

Top
 Profile  
Ritual_Suicide
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:39 am
Posts: 379
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:04 pm 
 

Handguns for protection or hunting rifles are ok, but aks and m-16s are a bit much. If you've seen Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore finds some real guns nuts. One even has an anti-tank gun if I remember right.
:shock:
Most people who are for gun rights arn't that extreme.

Top
 Profile  
CountBlagorath
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1042
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:13 pm 
 

Ritual_Suicide wrote:
Handguns for protection or hunting rifles are ok, but aks and m-16s are a bit much. If you've seen Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore finds some real guns nuts. One even has an anti-tank gun if I remember right.
:shock:
Most people who are for gun rights arn't that extreme.


Michael Moore is a fat piece of shit. If somebody want's to own a anti-tank gun or a AK-47, then god bless them. It's America and they have a right to own one.

Anyways I could dress up my .22 to look like a M-16. Will that be next? A ban on kits that dress up your gun? He voted aganst semi-autos and voted for gun makers being sued for people getting killed by thier gun.
_________________
Cinerary on Triptykon's album wrote:
This album made my girlfriend's water break and that bitch wasn't even pregnant.

PeachPit wrote:
5 dollar BJ's anyone?

MY BAND:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Ir ... 1401059608

Top
 Profile  
ThrashingMad
Skanky

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:47 pm
Posts: 2353
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:49 pm 
 

I've always found the gun issue to be rather ridiculous. It's just another round-a-bout way of dealing with a harmful issue instead of attacking it at its source. Seriously, why not put this much effort in to actually preventing crime and controlling gang violence.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:52 pm 
 

CountBlagorath wrote:
If somebody want's to own a anti-tank gun or a AK-47, then god bless them. It's America and they have a right to own one.


Image

America, Fuck Yeah!

Top
 Profile  
ThrashingMad
Skanky

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:47 pm
Posts: 2353
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:01 am 
 

Really, what the hell is the appeal of something like that? I guess it could replace part of a weight-lifting set, but Jesus, I really don't get this kind of stuff.

Top
 Profile  
Crick
Despised by 17 Corners of the Universe

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 6205
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:06 am 
 

He needs it to kill Obama when he transforms into his demon form.
_________________
The_Beast_In_Black wrote:
Hehe, foreskins.

Under_Starmere wrote:
Hehe, hole.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:08 am 
 

ThrashingMad wrote:
Really, what the hell is the appeal of something like that? I guess it could replace part of a weight-lifting set, but Jesus, I really don't get this kind of stuff.


I dont know about you but I would love to own one of those :P. That would be fun as hell to shoot in the field behind my house.


Crick wrote:
He needs it to kill Obama when he transforms into his demon form.


:lol:

Top
 Profile  
Sinvocation
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:03 am
Posts: 291
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:19 am 
 

T51b wrote:
CountBlagorath wrote:
If somebody want's to own a anti-tank gun or a AK-47, then god bless them. It's America and they have a right to own one.


Image

America, Fuck Yeah!


:| ...When you absolutely, positively, undoubtedly must kill everything in sight!

That gun's bigger than that guy, the recoil probably sends him back a few yards.

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:21 am 
 

T51b wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
No ones gonna take your guns away from you. Guns are just collectibles to many people. I can't see the rational though behind having a huge person arsenal for self protection.


The reasons vary greatly I suppose, some are collectors/shooters and then you can also go into the people (my friends and neighbors who own the automatics fall into this category) who believe they should maintain a vast arsenal so that if the government ever threatens individual freedom they will be there to keep it in check.

That is the main reason I am not worried with someone attempting to impose to great of control on firearms so soon, there are already thousands of armed Americans who possess the mentality of "Come to take my guns and I will give you my bullets"


Sadly your arsenal would be for not if such a case were to arise. The "we need guns in order to keep the government from oppressing us" argument doesn't work in this modern age of tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The best way to keep the government from oppressing you and taking your freedoms away is to be more involved and educated politically, sadly I don't that happening with the common man. The military industrial complex already has the nation by it's balls, and your small arsenal is little threat.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:40 am 
 

Avaddons_blood wrote:
Sadly your arsenal would be for not if such a case were to arise. The "we need guns in order to keep the government from oppressing us" argument doesn't work in this modern age of tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The best way to keep the government from oppressing you and taking your freedoms away is to be more involved and educated politically, sadly I don't that happening with the common man. The military industrial complex already has the nation by it's balls, and your small arsenal is little threat.


I never said that was my reason for owning them. The only real thing I have in common there is I will never give my guns over to the government even if they are outlawed, that much I can promise you. Who ever they send to collect them better come in numbers :wink:

You also severely underestimate how much trouble the millions of armed American's could cause if they were forced into it. Sure the militia men and gun nuts are the only ones who are very vocal in it right now but if push came to shove I still have faith the gun owners of America would not go down without a fight.

I am also glad I finally get to use the massive amounts of imagery I had saved from visiting the myspaces of different militias :P

Image

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:42 am 
 

Avaddons_blood wrote:
T51b wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
No ones gonna take your guns away from you. Guns are just collectibles to many people. I can't see the rational though behind having a huge person arsenal for self protection.


The reasons vary greatly I suppose, some are collectors/shooters and then you can also go into the people (my friends and neighbors who own the automatics fall into this category) who believe they should maintain a vast arsenal so that if the government ever threatens individual freedom they will be there to keep it in check.

That is the main reason I am not worried with someone attempting to impose to great of control on firearms so soon, there are already thousands of armed Americans who possess the mentality of "Come to take my guns and I will give you my bullets"


Sadly your arsenal would be for not if such a case were to arise. The "we need guns in order to keep the government from oppressing us" argument doesn't work in this modern age of tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The best way to keep the government from oppressing you and taking your freedoms away is to be more involved and educated politically, sadly I don't that happening with the common man. The military industrial complex already has the nation by it's balls, and your small arsenal is little threat.


:shock: Are you actually admitting that we live in a tyranny?!
Good for you! :thumbsup:

On a serious note, gun seizures on the massive scale needed to clean the country are not feasible, so I'm not particularly worried. Even with the Military Industrial Complex's Sci-Fi satellite arsenal and tanks, you'd have a hard time taking down all the arsenals in the country without people getting suspicious, like they did after Waco and Ruby Ridge, despite all of the MSM propaganda that tried to spin those national incidents. Furthermore, if every family in America waited behind the front doors with some household weapons such as kitchen knives or axes, Uncle Sam would run out of SS guys eventually.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
Peregrinus sine aetate

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Orocarni
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:43 am 
 

Avaddons_blood wrote:

Sadly your arsenal would be for not if such a case were to arise. The "we need guns in order to keep the government from oppressing us" argument doesn't work in this modern age of tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons.



Really? It seemed to work pretty damn well for Al-Qaeda in Iraq (not that we really were oppressing them, but many no doubt saw it that way). Yeah, one person with a gun won't do much against a bunch of tanks, but thousands of them can cause a lot of problems. Military victory itself probably won't be possible, but if the government tries to oppress its citizens through the military and the police, the citizens won't be looking to destroy the military, they'll be looking to overthrow the government. That means using violence to cause overwhelming political pressure, not the total defeat of the most powerful military since the days when the sun never set on the British Empire.
_________________
Quote:
<@failsafeman> if you touch a girl while you're fucking a gorilla, it doesn't count as gay
<@failsafeman> that's a rule

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:29 pm 
 

I can see this thread is heading to disillusion town fast, I guess I didn't really help with my last post either. Drawing up scenarios of military people busting into the houses of citizens and demanding their guns.

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:45 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
T51b wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
No ones gonna take your guns away from you. Guns are just collectibles to many people. I can't see the rational though behind having a huge person arsenal for self protection.


The reasons vary greatly I suppose, some are collectors/shooters and then you can also go into the people (my friends and neighbors who own the automatics fall into this category) who believe they should maintain a vast arsenal so that if the government ever threatens individual freedom they will be there to keep it in check.

That is the main reason I am not worried with someone attempting to impose to great of control on firearms so soon, there are already thousands of armed Americans who possess the mentality of "Come to take my guns and I will give you my bullets"


Sadly your arsenal would be for not if such a case were to arise. The "we need guns in order to keep the government from oppressing us" argument doesn't work in this modern age of tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The best way to keep the government from oppressing you and taking your freedoms away is to be more involved and educated politically, sadly I don't that happening with the common man. The military industrial complex already has the nation by it's balls, and your small arsenal is little threat.


:shock: Are you actually admitting that we live in a tyranny?!
Good for you! :thumbsup:


I have to apologize to you. I shouldn't have insulted you for your views, as crazy as some might be.

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:22 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
I am also glad I finally get to use the massive amounts of imagery I had saved from visiting the myspaces of different militias :P
That is one of Oleg Volk's many images, in case you didn't know.
http://www.a-human-right.com/

Avaddons_blood wrote:
I can see this thread is heading to disillusion town fast, I guess I didn't really help with my last post either. Drawing up scenarios of military people busting into the houses of citizens and demanding their guns.
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:45 pm 
 

josephus wrote:

Avaddons_blood wrote:
I can see this thread is heading to disillusion town fast, I guess I didn't really help with my last post either. Drawing up scenarios of military people busting into the houses of citizens and demanding their guns.
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina


Not the kind of scenario I was referring to. Interesting video though.

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:56 pm 
 

Oh I know, it's not quite a military action. The National Guard did the same thing though. National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans
That's the closest the U.S has seen so far, as far as I know.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
ThrashingMad
Skanky

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:47 pm
Posts: 2353
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:02 pm 
 

Do you pro gun people really think American gun-owners would basically start a 2nd civil war if the government threatened to take them away?

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:14 pm 
 

ThrashingMad wrote:
Do you pro gun people really think American gun-owners would basically start a 2nd civil war if the government threatened to take them away?


Are you asking do we think American gun owners would use violence if the government attempted to confiscate the weapons already in our possession?

Absolutely.

Top
 Profile  
Leify
A Whisper of Death

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:54 am
Posts: 744
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:22 pm 
 

CountBlagorath wrote:

Michael Moore is a fat piece of shit. If somebody want's to own a anti-tank gun or a AK-47, then god bless them. It's America and they have a right to own one.


Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"
_________________
Between the velvet lies, there's a truth that's hard as steel. The vision never dies, life's a never ending wheel.
Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:27 pm 
 

ThrashingMad wrote:
Do you pro gun people really think American gun-owners would basically start a 2nd civil war if the government threatened to take them away?
Honestly? I believe that a lot (most in fact) of them would hand them over if faced with a military-enforced blanket ban, but a fair few of the 'hardcore' would rather die.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:28 pm 
 

josephus wrote:
That is one of Oleg Volk's many images, in case you didn't know.
http://www.a-human-right.com/


Thanks, I did not know the source. I like it a lot however.

Leify wrote:
Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"


Because we can, really we do not have to give you any other reason. It is our right as American citizens if we pass the necessary background checks and go about the legal process to own said weapons.

Reasons vary greatly and you will hear all sorts, collecting,leisure shooting,protecting liberty and so on. Everyone has different take on it but the one thing they all have in common is we love and cherish our right as Americans to be able to keep them.

And time for another Oleg Volk image! :P

Image


Last edited by T51b on Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:29 pm 
 

In a state of martial law, the government has the right to take people's guns. Every part of the bill of rights is put on hold because there are more important things to worry about, like order.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:30 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
In a state of martial law, the government has the right to take people's guns. Every part of the bill of rights is put on hold because there are more important things to worry about, like order.


If we are in a state of martial law we would have many other things to worry about than government trying to take our firearms.

Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:31 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
In a state of martial law, the government has the right to take people's guns. Every part of the bill of rights is put on hold because there are more important things to worry about, like order.


If we are in a state of martial law we would have many other things to worry about than government trying to take our firearms.


My point was, what happened in New Orleans was legal, because of martial law that was imposed there.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:34 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
In a state of martial law, the government has the right to take people's guns. Every part of the bill of rights is put on hold because there are more important things to worry about, like order.


If we are in a state of martial law we would have many other things to worry about than government trying to take our firearms.


My point was, what happened in New Orleans was legal, because of martial law that was imposed there.


Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters. [9] Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city. Additionally it has been reported that armed contractors from Blackwater USA assisted in policing the city.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_la ... ne_Katrina

Top
 Profile  
206
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 966
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:47 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
In a state of martial law, the government has the right to take people's guns. Every part of the bill of rights is put on hold because there are more important things to worry about, like order.


If we are in a state of martial law we would have many other things to worry about than government trying to take our firearms.


Like setting up the generator, booby-trapping the perimeter, covering the outside of each window with 2x4's (and covering that with plywood), robbing radio shack for a suit case full of batteries...

And digging out your copy of Red Dawn before the power goes out. Wolverines, bitch. Wolverines.

Top
 Profile  
CountBlagorath
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1042
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:08 pm 
 

Leify wrote:
CountBlagorath wrote:

Michael Moore is a fat piece of shit. If somebody want's to own a anti-tank gun or a AK-47, then god bless them. It's America and they have a right to own one.


Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"


It's called fun. Shure, if you want to buy one of those I think you should have to get a licence, but if they want to own one then by all means, let them. And I'm gonna not folow your request. "2nd Ammendment!!!!" Why do you want to question that?
_________________
Cinerary on Triptykon's album wrote:
This album made my girlfriend's water break and that bitch wasn't even pregnant.

PeachPit wrote:
5 dollar BJ's anyone?

MY BAND:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Ir ... 1401059608

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1129
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:09 pm 
 

206 wrote:
T51b wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
In a state of martial law, the government has the right to take people's guns. Every part of the bill of rights is put on hold because there are more important things to worry about, like order.


If we are in a state of martial law we would have many other things to worry about than government trying to take our firearms.


Like setting up the generator, booby-trapping the perimeter, covering the outside of each window with 2x4's (and covering that with plywood), robbing radio shack for a suit case full of batteries...

And digging out your copy of Red Dawn before the power goes out. Wolverines, bitch. Wolverines.


Ah my favorite historical film :P

Top
 Profile  
Leify
A Whisper of Death

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:54 am
Posts: 744
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:14 pm 
 

T51b wrote:

Leify wrote:
Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"


Because we can, really we do not have to give you any other reason. It is our right as American citizens if we pass the necessary background checks and go about the legal process to own said weapons.

Reasons vary greatly and you will hear all sorts, collecting,leisure shooting,protecting liberty and so on.


'Because you can' is essentially, "2nd Amendment!!!" You don't justify the legitimacy of the amendment by saying, "Well look, its in the Constitution. It is beyond logic, so we just can." I'm all for private ownership of guns, I have a couple myself, but I'm also in favor of gun ownership that doesn't defy all practicality and logic.

If you want to collect high powered guns, then they don't need to be capable of firing.

What liberty are you protecting by having a fucking anti-tank gun or automatic rifle. Are you expecting the gov'mint bastards to wage war on you? Or maybe our military magically ceases to exist and the US gets invaded? By this same rationale, we're protecting our liberty by making sure every American owns his own A-bomb.

Leisure shooting is a different story, but I can't see any reason to need to shoot a AK-47 over a magnum or shotgun if all you're doing is target practice and want some recoil.

The general theory behind practice shooting is that you are improving your aim with the gun (maybe it's just me, but I was raised not to just shoot at random shit) and nothing comes to mind for needing to be a crack shot with an AK.
_________________
Between the velvet lies, there's a truth that's hard as steel. The vision never dies, life's a never ending wheel.
Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8756
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:18 pm 
 

Leify wrote:
Leisure shooting is a different story, but I can't see any reason to need to shoot a AK-47 over a magnum or shotgun if all you're doing is target practice and want some recoil.

The general theory behind practice shooting is that you are improving your aim with the gun (maybe it's just me, but I was raised not to just shoot at random shit) and nothing comes to mind for needing to be a crack shot with an AK.


Nah, you basically said it yourself here. Lots of people (myself included) shoot for fun, and I love to shoot all sorts of firearms, including fully autos. I have indeed fired an AK before, and an got to shoot my friend's father's UMP5 (really amazing gun).

Top
 Profile  
206
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 966
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:19 pm 
 

Leify wrote:
What liberty are you protecting by having a fucking anti-tank gun or automatic rifle.

Say the revolution hits and a bunch of vets with PTSD jack a tank and take a pleasure cruise through your neighborhood. Every one will flock to the guy who owns the anti-tank gun, right?
Quote:
nothing comes to mind for needing to be a crack shot with an AK.

If that is all you got, and you only have two clips left, you better be a good shot.

Top
 Profile  
ThrashingMad
Skanky

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:47 pm
Posts: 2353
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:23 pm 
 

I definitely understand the whole idea of having guns for fun, as I can imagine they are, but it's this whole "upholding personal liberties" thing that makes me somewhat uneasy. That said, I'm definitely not anti-gun.

I'm gonna suggest to the mods that this thread be split into one about gun restrictions or lack there of.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adriankat, Jackoroth and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group