Nobody needs an M16? ....whaaaaaaat?
Note from Bart:
Before we start, let me state for the newbies that I own guns.
The Baby Glock rides in the
Bartmobile.
The Glock 9mm rests by the bed.
I bought a Lady Colt .38 Detective
Special for Mrs Bart.
I have a S&W .357 for scaring
people who don't know what a Glock is.
I have a Davis derringer for
the occasional poker game cheat :)
There'a difference between a gun owner and a gun nut.
Bartcop and co.,
Ok. I am probably not
the best guy to explain this, but since I have not seen anyone else explain
it
to you, I will give it a crack.
It is really hard to get a hold of an automatic firearm, or "machine gun".
Why are you going there? Why did you make
that leap?
Nobody said anything about "machine guns," so
you're fighting an idea that nobody mentioned.
For a long time now, you have needed a special
Federal Firearms Licence. Not the FFL you need to be
a gun dealer or gun manufacturer, but a different
class of FFL. You need to have a squeaky clean record.
You are required to have a safe for storing your
automatic weapon in.
...and people need those because their hobby is
collecting machine guns?
What if people want to collect bazookas?
What if people want to collect cop-killer bullets?
What if people want to collect dynamite and C4
and blasting caps?
The biggest problem a gun nut has is you don't
get that you have to accept some limits on guns or you're
saying it should be OK for every drunken felon
with rage problems to be armed with any gun in the world.
If you want to have some sanity on your side,
you'll accept some limits.
Anyone who is not a US citizen is probably not
gonna be getting a hold of an automatic weapon anytime soon.
So I really doubt that foreign terrorists are
going to come here to the US to go on gun-buying sprees.
How about a terrorist with a handful of hundred
dollar bills in a poor neighborhood?
These "assault weapons"
that were formerly banned are not automatic weapons. If one who is ignorant
about guns takes the time to do a little research,
they will realize that an "assault weapon" differs from most
other rifles in these respects; they are lighter
that hunting rifles, they are shorter than some hunting rifles, they can
fire bullets faster than some hunting rifles,
and some can accept bigger magazines than some hunting rifles.
That's it.
ha ha
"That's it?"
"lighter" - why would
a gun manufacturer make a heavier gun for hunting?
Who wants to carry a heavy gun thru the woods
for hours and hours?
"Shorter" - which
I assume you mean barrel length - sounds like somebody doesn't want/need
to be precise.
Why would anyone want a gun to be less precise
in what it's aimed at?
"bigger magazines"
- you say that like it's no big thing.
When a scumbag turns loose on a school, his re-loading
break is the only chance to tackle him.
Why let him kill 40 kids when the old law had
a ten-kid maximum?
Why are they like this?
Because these attributes are also the attributes that people who like to
go
shooting a lot want in their firearms.
Well, screw what "people want."
When their "hobby" can involve killing dozens
of people in the blink of an eye, we put some curbs on it, OK?
Do they let you shoot bottle rockets and roman
candles in your neighborhood?
Probably not, because those toys often burn down homes. That makes
sense, right?
Extending your argument to its logical conclusion,
what if the kid next door wants a flame-thrower?
How safe is your home when he's playing in the
back yard?
If you like to go down to the range and shoot, wouldn't you want a rifle that was lighter to carry around? Not as bulky?
A sawed-off shotgun is lighter and not as bulky,
too.
I mean, nobody wants a heavier, bulkier gun -
why make that argument?
Didn't have a bolt action, and therefore was easier
to fire, and quicker?
Accepted a bigger magazine so you didn't have
to stop to reload as often?
ha ha
There you go again - wanting 40 kids killed instead
of just ten.
Surely you've seen Michael Jackson's "Thriller"
video?
My Glock can handle every goon that's coming
thru every door and every window.
It can fire three bullets in less than a second.
You don't need army-stopping guns around the
house.
If you're fighting an entire army,
you might as well surrender.
Besides, if the government allows a 60-round clip,
won't you complain that they prevent you from
having a 120-round clip?
Ok. I am gonna stop now.
I am so sick and tired of explaining about "assault weapons".
If y'all really don't want "assault weapons"
around, go live in NYC.
No, if you insist on hundred-round clips,
you can go live in Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
BTW, you do read newspapers and check the news,
right?
Men shap every day - every single damn day.
Some girl tells a man "No" and he loses his mind
and starts killing people.
I prefer that fewer people die when these men
snap, because they snap constantly.
No one can own a gun there. It should prove to
be real safe there, right? Ok, you don't feel like moving to
the ultra-safe, gun-free NYC. Petition
your local gov't, and make your town gun-free. Fair warning to
you, though; take a look at what's happened to
England and Australia after their gun-bans went down.
It appears that their gun-bans have not made
life safer.
Oh please - did you really say that?
England and Australia combined
don't has as many murders each year as one bad weekend in Compton.
Who knows, anyone who reads Bartcop knows that
part of life nowdays is "Lying with Statistics".
But I think that the gun-bans are not effective
in reducing violence. In order to reduce violence, you have
to change people. You have to prevent people
from becoming violent. You can't do that by banning guns.
Tell that to Japan, where they had maybe a dozen
gun deaths last year.
Tell that to Canada, where they have all the
violent American media but maybe only 25 gun murders.
What did we have last year - 13,000?
C'mon, if someone wants
to commit violence, all they need is a brick, or just their fists.
This is what the gun-ban countries are finding
out. Gun-bans keep people who respect the rule of law
at a disadvantage vs. the criminals who break
laws, including the gun-ban laws.
You may be too far gone to save,
You just said one angry man with a brick is as
dangerous as one angry man with a Glock in a school.
You probably have no idea how crazy you sound.
The bottom line is this:
"No guns allowed" laws work in countries with
less than 50,000,000 guns.
Since America has over 100,000,000 guns, (80,000,000
just in Texas)
I choose to arm myself, but not against an entire
invasion force.
Bart, you wrote:
> "You're right - nobody needs an M16"
Dude, yeah, no one needs an M-16, but no one needs a Hummer either. Ya gonna outlaw those?
If Hummers could kill 50 people every time the
driver had a bad day - sure.
But since they can't, that makes your argument
kinda goofy.
Rich people don't need palatial houses that are
more like castles or manors, ya gonna outlaw those?
I don't need Coca Cola, ya gonna outlaw soda
pop?
Dude, are you new to the debate thing?
Do you think people want to restrict guns for
no reason?
If castles and Coca Cola could kill mass amounts
of people in seconds, yeah, we'd have to restrict them.
Do you really want the gov't telling us EVEN MORE
SHIT that we can and can have?!?!?!?!?
No fucking thanks, pal!
none ya
What drug were you doing when you wrote this?
Do you think kids should have flame throwers that shoot 200 feet?
How about drunk driving? You don't want the government stopping drunk
drivers?
Do restrictions on drunk driving get a "No fucking
thanks, pal!" from you, too?
I think you need to reflect on your decision making process a little
more.
Coca Cola didn't cause Columbine, and neither did castles.