GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Really? I point out the rather obvious fatal flaw in your logic, that amply demonstrates your breathtaking ignorance on the topic, and an ill-advised grandpa joke is all you have? Notwithstanding an SKS and AK-47 are both semiautomatic and a Garand is a relic, I am sorry for the grandpa slight.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Notwithstanding an SKS and AK-47 are both semiautomatic and a Garand is a relic, I am sorry for the grandpa slight. You're right, I always thought the SKS was bolt action. And I know people with Garands - not quite the relic that you'd think. Regardless, my point stands: you want to outlaw anything but bolt-action rifles, and ammo for the guns you outlaw, ignoring the fact that it's often the same ammo used in bolt-action rifles. That's amazingly stupid and short-sighted. And don't apologize for the grandpa crack, kid. Be proud of it. Own it. It shows how thoroughly empty your argument is.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You're right, I always thought the SKS was bolt action. And I know people with Garands - not quite the relic that you'd think. Regardless, my point stands: you want to outlaw anything but bolt-action rifles, and ammo for the guns you outlaw, ignoring the fact that it's often the same ammo used in bolt-action rifles. That's amazingly stupid and short-sighted. And don't apologize for the grandpa crack, kid. Be proud of it. Own it. It shows how thoroughly empty your argument is. Hey, I own a Mosin M44 and it's great fun. I'm not against old guns at all. Just thought those two examples were funny. And yes, it's true you can use the same (or similar) rounds in multiple platforms... I still haven't heard any substantive counterpoint my larger issue on selective gun control.
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Former Soldier? Where? When?19D OSUT AT Ft. Knox 10/02-03/033/2 ACR at Polk from 03-04. I was basically deployed that whole time. 1-33 Cav, 3rd BCT, 101st, 04-10 Houston USAREC, 10-12. ETSd. Edited March 9, 2017 by The_Dude
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 19D OSUT AT Ft. Knox 10/02-03/03 3/2 ACR at Polk from 03-04. I was basically deployed that whole time. 1-33 Cav, 3rd BCT, 101st, 04-10 Houston USAREC, 10-12. ETSd. Thanks for serving! It's a cliche, but we can't thank you enough for it.
Azalin Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 ... I still haven't heard any substantive counterpoint my larger issue on selective gun control. Who decides what guns are to be allowed and which are okay? How often does that get reviewed? Would you require licenses for private ownership? Is it important to allow people the same personal defensive firepower as criminals, terrorists, or even law enforcement have? How do we stop the production of similar firearms overseas and prevent them from being imported or smuggled into the country? I think there are plenty of substantive arguments to be made without engaging in a long back & forth.
Joe Miner Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Hey, I own a Mosin M44 and it's great fun. I'm not against old guns at all. Just thought those two examples were funny. And yes, it's true you can use the same (or similar) rounds in multiple platforms... I still haven't heard any substantive counterpoint my larger issue on selective gun control. You haven't made a point on selective gun control. You offered an opinion based on your feelings. No one cares about either of those things.
Hank II Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 19D OSUT AT Ft. Knox 10/02-03/03 3/2 ACR at Polk from 03-04. I was basically deployed that whole time. 1-33 Cav, 3rd BCT, 101st, 04-10 Houston USAREC, 10-12. ETSd. We were Rakkasans at the same time. I was the BDE Air NCOIC during the 08 deployment under Caracillo. We probably know each other.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Who decides what guns are to be allowed and which are okay? How often does that get reviewed? Would you require licenses for private ownership? Is it important to allow people the same personal defensive firepower as criminals, terrorists, or even law enforcement have? How do we stop the production of similar firearms overseas and prevent them from being imported or smuggled into the country? I think there are plenty of substantive arguments to be made without engaging in a long back & forth. I agree 100%, and I'm only giving my personal opinion on the subject. As a matter of enforcement the are several thorny issues not easily resolved, as you've mentioned. You take our nation's history into account and it's obvious as to why there's likely no concensus to be had. I guess to simplify, I'd say LESS guns would be preferable but I'm obviously open to hear alternative solutions. I just can't argue with the dudes who invoke the 2nd Amendment to make their point...it's such a nonstarter. You haven't made a point on selective gun control. You offered an opinion based on your feelings. No one cares about either of those things. Yes you do, Joe. It's important we all care deeply about these things and discuss them on a football message board. Shotguns for castle, bolt action long rifles for hunting and recreation. No handguns or semiautomatics for killing our fellow citizenry. Leave those to the trained professionals.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I agree 100%, and I'm only giving my personal opinion on the subject. As a matter of enforcement the are several thorny issues not easily resolved, as you've mentioned. You take our nation's history into account and it's obvious as to why there's likely no concensus to be had. I guess to simplify, I'd say LESS guns would be preferable but I'm obviously open to hear alternative solutions. I just can't argue with the dudes who invoke the 2nd Amendment to make their point...it's such a nonstarter. You're invoking your feelings. That's even more of a nonstarter than the 2nd Amendment? Yes you do, Joe. It's important we all care deeply about these things and discuss them on a football message board. His point was that, on this board, you bring solid facts and logic, or you get laughed at. "We should ban everything but bolt-action hunting rifles, because..." isn't nearly as important here as what comes after "because..." And if what comes after is "...that's how I feel, dammit!" you will get smacked around. (If it's merely factually or logically unsound, we'll just poke great big holes in it.) Shotguns for castle, bolt action long rifles for hunting and recreation. No handguns or semiautomatics for killing our fellow citizenry. Leave those to the trained professionals. Did you not realize that reads as "Leave killing our fellow citizenry to the trained professionals?" Or was that intentional sarcasm?
Azalin Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I agree 100%, and I'm only giving my personal opinion on the subject. As a matter of enforcement the are several thorny issues not easily resolved, as you've mentioned. You take our nation's history into account and it's obvious as to why there's likely no concensus to be had. I guess to simplify, I'd say LESS guns would be preferable but I'm obviously open to hear alternative solutions. I just can't argue with the dudes who invoke the 2nd Amendment to make their point...it's such a nonstarter. You're right in that there will never be an acceptable consensus on regulatory ownership, so what then would be a better alternative? I understand that invocation of the second amendment can be irritating during the course of discussion, but would you really support an attempt to alter one of the fundamental constitutional liberties we're guaranteed? The precedent would easily become applicable with respect to the other constitutional rights as well. Search & seizure, cruel and inhuman punishment, self-incrimination, private property, religious freedom, speech & expression - all of them would become subject for review and refit once you allow any liberties to be changed. In addition, it must be remembered that constitutional liberties are not provided by the government - they are ours inherently because we exist, and the entire document is a statement of control and limits of federal control over us.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You're invoking your feelings. That's even more of a nonstarter than the 2nd Amendment? His point was that, on this board, you bring solid facts and logic, or you get laughed at. "We should ban everything but bolt-action hunting rifles, because..." isn't nearly as important here as what comes after "because..." And if what comes after is "...that's how I feel, dammit!" you will get smacked around. (If it's merely factually or logically unsound, we'll just poke great big holes in it.) Did you not realize that reads as "Leave killing our fellow citizenry to the trained professionals?" Or was that intentional sarcasm? Blues Traveller on background...Sorry, missed your point. To recap: the 'because' is that it's much harder to kill lots of people in a short period of time if you have to reload. Keep on smacking though...why you wanna give me a run around...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Off topic and I apologize...I think they perpetuate the attitude of entitlement we suffer from today. I think they're insular, self-congratulatory, undemocratic, wholly unAmerican. Yikes. You either come a family teachers or union workers. Which one?
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You're right in that there will never be an acceptable consensus on regulatory ownership, so what then would be a better alternative? I understand that invocation of the second amendment can be irritating during the course of discussion, but would you really support an attempt to alter one of the fundamental constitutional liberties we're guaranteed? The precedent would easily become applicable with respect to the other constitutional rights as well. Search & seizure, cruel and inhuman punishment, self-incrimination, private property, religious freedom, speech & expression - all of them would become subject for review and refit once you allow any liberties to be changed. In addition, it must be remembered that constitutional liberties are not provided by the government - they are ours inherently because we exist, and the entire document is a statement of control and limits of federal control over us. YES. Well put. I'm equally wary of setting bad precedent and I believe the concept of constitutionalism would argue against such revisions, but I'm not a purist and there exist areas (specifically dealing with tech, including but certainly not limited to weaponry) wherein I do think a modern interpretation of (some) of our rights as citizens would benefit the conversion. As we evolve, so too does society and a realistic attitude about the pros and cons of rigid adherence to an outdated (probably a bad word choice) philosophy can only be of benefit. But I'm particularly flexible. It's certainly not a right/wrong issue in my mind.
Azalin Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 YES. Well put. I'm equally wary of setting bad precedent and I believe the concept of constitutionalism would argue against such revisions, but I'm not a purist and there exist areas (specifically dealing with tech, including but certainly not limited to weaponry) wherein I do think a modern interpretation of (some) of our rights as citizens would benefit the conversion. As we evolve, so too does society and a realistic attitude about the pros and cons of rigid adherence to an outdated (probably a bad word choice) philosophy can only be of benefit. But I'm particularly flexible. It's certainly not a right/wrong issue in my mind. I hate resorting to the slippery slope argument, but I'm afraid it best describes my beliefs in this regard. Constitutional liberties are limits on governmental power and control, not freedoms that are afforded us by our government. Not only do I believe they should never be altered, I also believe literal interpretation is the only way to guarantee they remain intact.
Greg F Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Notwithstanding an SKS and AK-47 are both semiautomatic and a Garand is a relic, I am sorry for the grandpa slight. Remington Model 700 SPS Blued Bolt-Action Rifle -.223 Remington/ 5.56 NATO Black Rain Ordnance® BRO Spec15 Carbine Semi-Auto Rifle -.223 Remington/ 5.56 NATO I am quite sure it wouldn't include body guards for the rich and famous nor private security for private schools where the rich and famous send their kids. Welcome to the Animal Farm mentality. I'd also outlaw private schools. Apparently body guards for the rich and famous is okay by you.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I hate resorting to the slippery slope argument, but I'm afraid it best describes my beliefs in this regard. Constitutional liberties are limits on governmental power and control, not freedoms that are afforded us by our government. Not only do I believe they should never be altered, I also believe literal interpretation is the only way to guarantee they remain intact. You must agree that not all provisions of the Constitution are to remain unaltered though, correct? Couldn't this be an area in need of some updating?
/dev/null Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) M1 Garand? SKS?!? Go to bed, grandpa. Notwithstanding an SKS and AK-47 are both semiautomatic and a Garand is a relic, I am sorry for the grandpa slight. You're right, I always thought the SKS was bolt action. And I know people with Garands - not quite the relic that you'd think. If you hadn't noticed my sig line, take a quick gander....now that's out of the way It's a safe bet to call me a Garand fanboy. Sure they're old, heavy, and based off a design that has since been greatly improved upon. But they're still a very capable firearm, make and excellent hunting rifle, and are a great piece of American history. If you're eligible to own one, I recommend picking one up. That said, the M1 isn't my first choice in home defense. If something goes bump in the night, I'm reaching for my snubby Edited March 9, 2017 by /dev/null
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Remington Model 700 SPS Blued Bolt-Action Rifle -.223 Remington/ 5.56 NATO Black Rain Ordnance® BRO Spec15 Carbine Semi-Auto Rifle -.223 Remington/ 5.56 NATO Apparently body guards for the rich and famous is okay by you. What part of law enforcement and military are you having so much trouble with?
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 We were Rakkasans at the same time. I was the BDE Air NCOIC during the 08 deployment under Caracillo. We probably know each other. Naw bro, I was made rear D commander for that go round. I had just had a baby and the Army lady doctor said she had a life threatening disease and they rear-D'd me as a result. Turns out my kid was fine and she's 9 now! It ended up kinda being the thing where I decided to end my Army career. They wouldn't send me to the board because I wasn't deployed, so I said screw you guys, I'm going to USAREC and then going home. Been out 5 years, got a degree in History (god bless the GI Bill), and I opened up an HVAC company a couple years ago and I'm rolling. Transition was hard at first, but I got my feet under me now.
Recommended Posts