On 11/29/2011 9:08, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 8:07, Invisible wrote:
>> "The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault ri
fle[...]"
>
> OK. Then people aren't carrying them around as a matter of course. Mach
ine
> guns are indeed highly regulated here.

Or rather, the versions they're carrying around aren't the AK-47s describ
ed 
in that article.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2011 5:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Machine guns are indeed highly regulated here.

That sentence speaks volumes. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> the fact that when he 
> breaks the law, it's virtually impossible to actually get rid of him, even 
> more so now than historically.

  I thought article 2, section 4 of your constitution exists for that exact
purpose?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 10:48 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/11/2011 5:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Machine guns are indeed highly regulated here.
>
> That sentence speaks volumes. ;-)
>
No, the fact that it can't be "auto", but can be "semi-auto", and thus 
fire only 1/4 as many rounds in the same time, or something, is what 
speaks volumes. The presumption is always that a) bad guys are never 
going to find ways around it, b) they will never get their hands on 
bigger clips, and c) 10 dead people isn't as bad as 30, or something... 
In any case, the biggest bloody problems is that **time and time again** 
its been shown that someone can walk into a private auction, or a gun 
show, and *despite* regulations, pick up stuff, right there, when they 
have a record of already using them to shoot people. Why? Because 
special interest groups have "successfully" lobbied against blanket 
requirements, that would deny someone the right to go to one of these 
things, and walk out *with it*, having not gone through any of the 
paperwork, checks, etc., that they would at a gun shop.

Highly regulated doesn't mean shit, if the regulations are not in force, 
in some/all cases. They mean nothing, if there is a way to circumvent 
them, which, short of remaking the gun so it can't even be modded back 
into something more dangerous, isn't going to happen. Since such weapons 
are a) supposed to be destroyed, b) not supposed to be available to the 
public in the first place, and c) not "special made" in a civilian form, 
uh... maybe there is also some sort of problem with the very fact that 
people somehow end up with them *at all* in the first place?

Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes that it is 
absurd. And, most of those exist because a privileged few care more 
about the "inconvenience" that they would suffer, if they worked, than 
the wrong people ending up with them in the first place. Stupidly, its 
often the same morons that want "more" freedom to buy what ever they 
damn please, who want, at the same time, "more, longer, and stricter 
punishments, for first, second, etc. offenders, in nearly all crimes", 
with the seeming exception of circumvention of gun laws. You are more 
likely to see some idiot get 3 years in jail for spitting on the 
sidewalk in the future, than a drug dealer being denied a gun at a gun 
exhibition, due to someone bothering to do an adequate check. They might 
even sell it too them anyway, after they failed the check, then quote 
some "private sale" loophole, or something, to justify it.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 8:00 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
>>>     Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
>>> this. They don't have to.
>
>> I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.
>
>> I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up politicians
>> started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the President says
>> "Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then the cops tend to
>> do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing wrong with it.
>
>    I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
> police brutality and expressing it clearly like "police brutality must stop
> now", and that investigations on the incidents will be performed. I think
> he would win quite some supporters for the next election like that.
>
>    OTOH, I understand that Obama is not very known for standing firmly and
> strongly behind his principles, and instead trying to make compromises and
> try to make everybody happy, making him seem so weak, which is why he has
> lost so much citizen support.
>
Having recently played Arkham Asylum (just need to defeat joker), I had 
this thought on the nature of our current run up to the election:

Reporter: We are here today to talk to the candidates of the Godthem (As 
apposed to Gotham), Republican Comity to the Election of Lunatics about 
there feelings towards Two-Face (Obama), who won the last election. Lets 
start with you Joker.

Joker (McCain): Well now, at first, when I lost to him I thought, ah 
well, the games going to be fun anyway. Only, after a while it became 
obvious things where just not going well. I mean, one day he is plotting 
with me, the next he is telling the guards where I stashed the exploding 
whoopee cushions. Its like he is flipping a coin or something!

Reporter: How about you Harley?

Harlequin (Palin): Is my pudding still unhappy with me? I think he is 
still made at me. I thought he would be happy that I was trying to win 
instead this time, but them I thought maybe that would make him mad too, 
but then I thought, you know, maybe it would be good if I did win...

Reporter: Right, lets get back to you later.

Harley: You Betcha.

Reporter: Mr. E.

Riddler (Herman Cain): That's Mr. Nine. They're nines.

Reporter: What are nines?

Riddler: The things on my suit. I keep telling people 999, but no one 
listens. They are nines.

Reporter: Ok, so.. what is your opinion of Two-Face.

Riddler: I will answer your question if you answer mine, "What takes a 
blue pill when hanging out with you in the morning, has three legs in 
the day, and two legs and a stub at night?"

Reporter: I think that is seriously inappropriate, not to mention 
backwards, its the baby who would have the stub, and the old man that 
needs a blue pill. Lets stay on topic, OK.

Riddler: Backwards, backwards! I am never backwards! I am Mr. Nine. And 
I don't get what you think is so inappropriate about my riddle.

Reporter: Moving on...

--

I haven't decided if Bachman should be a warped Poison Ivy, who hates 
the environment instead, or some twisted version of Catwoman, never mind 
the rest of the insane clown posse. All I do know is, we are all 
wondering why Batman hasn't shown up to put them all back in their cells.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2011 4:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 10:48 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 29/11/2011 5:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Machine guns are indeed highly regulated here.
>>
>> That sentence speaks volumes. ;-)
>>
> No, the fact that it can't be "auto", but can be "semi-auto"...

Not much of an improvement as you point out.

>
> Highly regulated doesn't mean shit...

> Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes...


 From an outsider’s point of view, it is not the law that needs to be 
changed but attitudes. Earlier in the year I was working in Hobbs NM, 
just a few miles from the Texas border. During a meal I did a straw poll 
and only one of our six American colleagues did not own a firearm. Most 
had more than one. The most shocking case was the Training Manager (a 
hog riding, pistol packing mamma). She was five foot two with her hands 
in the air and had an arsenal at home that could supply a small army. I 
was just lost for words.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 20:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> if there is a way to circumvent them,

One of the things to remember during such a rant is that making guns is 
*easy*. People were doing it before they even had any power sources beyond 
human muscles.

If you have $1000 worth of machine tools, you can probably make as many 
machine guns as you like, just like you can make a zip gun for $5 or so.

> Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes that it is
> absurd.

Except we're not supposed to have such gun laws in the first place, so the 
fact they exist at all is cconsidered a loophole to the other side.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 9:55, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> the fact that when he
>> breaks the law, it's virtually impossible to actually get rid of him, even
>> more so now than historically.
>
>    I thought article 2, section 4 of your constitution exists for that exact
> purpose?
>

Yes. But it's virtually impossible to enforce such a thing. They've only 
ever impeached I think 3 or 4 presidents (Nixon, Clinton, and maybe 1 or 2 
others way back), and I don't think any have actually been forcably removed 
from office.

The problem is that you have the lawmakers enforcing laws against 
themselves. Not gonna happen, at least in our culture. I'm glad Finland 
isn't as fucked as we are.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/30/2011 8:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 20:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> if there is a way to circumvent them,
>
> One of the things to remember during such a rant is that making guns is
> *easy*. People were doing it before they even had any power sources
> beyond human muscles.
>
> If you have $1000 worth of machine tools, you can probably make as many
> machine guns as you like, just like you can make a zip gun for $5 or so.
>
Yeah. But if you had to make your own, or buy them off someone that did 
(versus a big corporation that makes thousands), the number of people 
that where not total nuts doing either.. well...

>> Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes that it is
>> absurd.
>
> Except we're not supposed to have such gun laws in the first place, so
> the fact they exist at all is considered a loophole to the other side.
>

Snort.. All over a damn comma.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/1/2011 13:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> the number of people that
> where not total nuts doing either.. well...

The number of people who buy actual machine guns are very low. You need a 
FFL3 license to even own one. Most people *selling* guns don't have that.

> Snort.. All over a damn comma.

Not really. You're already in the militia. So am I. At least according to 
federal law.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message