Alright guys, I'm pro-2A as hell, and I've been fighting the good fight; converting my somewhat-liberal college friends and acquaintances to my side of the fence on gun issues. My tally's at 18 people right now.
So now there's something I need your help with, given this new court case trying to repeal the NFA. Full Auto.
The way I see it, Full auto should be available, but "Class III", exactly like suppressors are now(However I believe that suppressors and SBRs etc should be unrestricted.)
Convince me otherwise.
Less people would be killed if retards like Lanza et al. had access to full-auto because people with zero idea what they're doing think FA = cruise control for cool.
Full auto saves lives.
>>23456957
Shall not be infringed.
>>23456972
But after some practicing with it, don't you think he could have learned how to better control it?
Also, are you That Guy on Steam as well? I play with a dude named That Guy on Insurgency.
>>23456999
probably would've used more bullets per child
His bpc would've been higher, so he'd just use up more ammunition rather than the 1-2 bullet recommended dose.
>>23456972
This. When we're talking rifles, full auto is actually less suited for mass shootings than semi.
>>23456999
No that is not my steam handle, funny you should mention that, as I had some spergs in a tissy the other day because they were mad they couldn't keep me out of their sekret RO:2 club because my Steam handle is completely different.
And no, not really. FA (in rifles anyway) is always going to be good at converting ammo to noise, and that's about it. It has it's place but that place isn't killing people.
>>23457032
gib zKillboard link pls
>>23456957
I think the bump fire stocks are the best option for untrained civilians to have, because you must use both hands to get the same effect.
>>23457069
Not going to get me SA police.
>>23457077
I just wanna put a friendly bounty on you.
>>23456957
Honestly, I agree with you.
There has to be some type of compromise on gun control, and this is a good one. The way I see it, full auto weapons would be useful in a drive-by situation or a target dense environment.
People can try and say that "Oh, full auto is less dangerous then semi-auto," but we all know that if we had to defend our lives, we would rather have a full auto than a bolt action. Overall, I'm in favor of them being regulated, but available for manufacture and trade.
>>23457084
>Implying bounty isin't already in the hundreds of millions
>Implying not -10.0
Pubbies in freighters get really mad when Blops ganks them on high-sec gates.
>>23457088
>we all know that if we had to defend our lives, we would rather have a full auto than a bolt action.
That's a cute fallacy.
I would pick controlled semi fire over full auto fire any day for defending my life.
>>23457099
Honestly I haven't tried that yet. I just fuck around in my Buzzard when I go to null. Is it worth the money to invest in a CovOps ganker for catching site runners?
>>23456957
Funny, I was just thinking about this. I would be in favor of MG's being legal like they were before the hughes amendment. A slightly more rigorous back round check would be "common sense" gun control IMO. Get rid of the 200$ tax stamp, thoug, because the only reason that existed was to make MG's ans SBR/S prohibitively expensive when the laws were introduced. Just my 2 cents.
>>23457118
They can be, CovOps tend to make really nice looking targets though. Your'e also going to have problems with heavier ships like Ishtars if you're on your own. Not to mention Drones will rip your ass up.
The ultimate solo site ganker is a Proteus.
>>23456957
No you faggot, YOU convince ME that a J shaped piece of sheet metal and a third hole is reason enough to put someone in jail for 10 years, when shit like the slidefire stocks exist and are A-OK.
Can you tap 7-9 rounds off in a second with a light trigger? Congratulations, you're getting into lower full auto rates of fire in semi. But that's A-OK because reasons I guess.
The NFA is horseshit that never should have been ejaculated onto the US public. The end.
Full Auto's are only useful for superior firepower over another hostile entity. The need for semi-auto is when precision and preservation of ammo is necessary in order to achieve as many hits as possible (i.e. school shooting) whereas full-auto is more efficient for dealing with other armed entities (less need for self-exposure due to less effort to hit, neglecting recoil).
Also, what does it mean when a thread is archived while it's still in the catalog? Just a random question.
>>23457140
Noted. I don't have near the liquid ISK right now for a T3, so what would be the 2nd best? Burned all my creds on a CNR for L4's, but I definitely want to move into PVP, carebear life is boring.
>>23457151
No, I am not condoning school shootings, I'm just saying that semi-auto is more conducive to them than full-auto. And I'm only posting on a tripcode right now to test it out, will stop so immediately.
>>23457151
it means the thread is queued for deletion and you can't post to it
>>23457162
If your PvP life is just beginning, start small man. I truthfully almost never bring anything bigger then a dual MASBing LIght missile/Rocket Hawk to solo PvP stuff.
>>23457105
Why? A select fire weapon capable of burst and semi-auto fire is surely more useful than a purely semi-auto weapon, right? I mean, otherwise militaries wouldn't use them.
>but we all know full auto is only good (and used) for suppressing fire.
Not true. More lead down range can be an acceptable substitute for accuracy. Full auto weapons would be (as I said before) more beneficial to gangs than a semi-auto equivalent, hence the need to control them.
I know there's this dogma about full auto weapons being less deadly then semi auto ones in the gun community, but it's simply not true.
>>23457189
I'm purely Caldari missiles as far as combat skills go. Should I try out an AF and go from there?
>>23457142
Oh- I absolutely don't believe it should be a felony- if anything, if it's used in a crime then make the punishment steeper. But no, having one would be a light misdemeanor and confiscation at best, in my world.
>>23457167
Much appreciated.
>>23457199
Try to get into guns first, T2 rails specificaly. Missiles, with a few exceptions are fucking terrible for PvP.
Also as a rule of thumb, never fit T1 shit to T2 frigs.
>>23457204
>Light misdemeanor
>Confiscation
>Haven't even began the discussion about why full-giggle firearms should or shouldn't be allowed
Presumptuous, this post is
>>23457194
This is exactly what I was thinking. Full autos being commonplace means more of them in the hands of gangbangers. If for no practical reason other than the hype behind full auto without needing a machinist.
>>23456957
>we need full auto because it's more effective for defending our homes!
>if full auto is more effective, then won't that mean more people will get killed in mass shootings?
>Full auto is less effective than semi auto, it won't help anybody commit a crime!
>if full auto is less effective, than why do you need it?
The MG registry will never be reopened because it's impossible to argue for.
>>23457224
Gotcha. So maybe start on a Merlin or Condor and run missions on it until I get enough SP into them?
Also, can someone post a link to that PDF with the proposed lawsuit and information?
>tripfag
>thinks guns should be restricted
fuck off and kill yourself
i dont have to prove shit to you, you gun grabber
>>23457281
It's like you didn't even read the OP.
>>23457242
>The MG registry will never be reopened because it's impossible to argue for.
There's no argument, it's already legal under the constitution you fucking retard.
>>23457194
>More lead down range can be an acceptable substitute for accuracy.
For rifles? Not really. You spend a shit ton of ammo and get little in return. Aimed semi auto fire is superior in every way unless we're going for bullshit vidya scenarios.
>>23457264
Yeah, those aren't really terrible. They'll also prep you for flying the Hawk and Harpy. Also, don't neglect your core skills like Capacator, PG, and shit like AWU V (for as tedious as it is).
Also get over blowing up and being podded, never use implants. I have 60,000,000 SP on my main and I use implants for a single ship because the PG is just so fucking huge.
>>23457264
>>23457300
Take this shit to /v/
>>23457295
Which explains why the registry is closed, doesn't it?
The Constitution doesn't mean shit anymore, try and keep up.
>>23457300
I've got core skills about maxed, main gap in combat SP is everything outside missiles. Are the T2 remotely viable for site ganking, or should I just save my bennies for the Proteus?
>>23457313
This. PLEASE. We're trying to have an angry debate with this man.
>>23457344
They can be, again you run the risk of encountering something that you are just flat out not a fucking match for, like an Ishtar. You won't have the DPS to even think of breaking their tank.
Hook up with someone like EveUni and learn about PvP from them, even though they don't do ganking a lot of the lessons you learn from them will help you out.
>>23457364
>angry debate
I'm gonna use that some time..
>>23457242
>if full auto is more effective, then won't that mean more people will get killed in mass shootings?
Mass shootings typically involve unarmed people. No point in having superior firepower that sacrifices efficiency and accuracy, if semi-auto already provides superior firepower over chilluns and average Joe's.
>If full auto is less effective, then why do you need it?
To defend against a tyrannical government in a combat situation. Full auto is a tactical advantage over other armed people, not an absolute superiority.
>>23457374
Hah. You can. Also, see this:
>>23457383
>>23457372
That's what I want to avoid, that's why I like cloaky so much. Stick to ganking failfits and site runners/miners.
>>23456994
> this
What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
> does that mean everyone should have a nuclear weapon?
Yes it does. IF a nutjob like Putin/Obama can have a button, THEN I should be able to get one too.
I'd be happy with them as Class III, with the registry opened again. I'm ok with restrictions as long as they're narrowly-tailored, neutrally-applied (ie, no "may issue" discretion), and proportionate to the harm they're seeking to avoid.
For example, silencers, as non-weapons that actually make guns safer to use, shouldn't require any more than "are you 18, here legally, and not felon/under warrant/crazy? Nope? here you go!" same day you walk in the store. All non-auto, non-DD firearms should be the same. Full-autos, high explosives, artillery, etc., all should be legal, but just harder and more expensive to obtain.
Of course, even the most sensible-restrictions are objectionable, as the anti-guns don't want to find the right balance of freedom and safety and then leave it but, but want to continually crack the ratchet until there's no freedom.
>>23457405
Actually, we had a thread about this a week or two ago. Was an interesting discussion. Shall not be infringed is not the go-to for philosophical debates about blowing shit up, it is a line in the Constitution of our government which should not be defied.
Fucking neckbeards shitting up legitimate discussions by taking things to extremes and defending them.
>>23457437
>No "may issue" discretion
THIS.
One of the biggest problems with NJ is that we have a biased, subjectively-applied clause for every weapons law. You can only get a CC permit if the reading officer thinks you "need" it. You can carry around any bladed weapon provided the officer "thinks" it has a lawful use. What horseshit. It just means that senators' kids and cops can do what they want.
>>23457437
Actually, explosives aren't really considered arms / armaments. They're technically ordinance.
>>23456957
I don't want full autos to be available to the general public because I bought a few machine guns as an investment and they would be worth way less than what they are currently worth if this law passes.
On the other hand I think only wealthy people like me should have access to a device so destructive, it keeps the human waste from being able to access weaponry much like the Saturday night special laws.
>>23456957
>Full auto should be available, but "Class III", exactly like suppressors are now(However I believe that suppressors and SBRs etc should be unrestricted.)
This is actually a good idea compared to what we have now, and unlike what most of what grabbers say, actually IS a compromise.
However. The reason MGs SHOULD be legal and ununrestricted, without even being taxed or registered is this:
There has been no constitutional amendment passed to justify it.
>The Executive branch levying taxes under any circumstances
>infringing on the peoples right to bear arms. (Yes arbitrary taxation and registration is infringement, as it makes it more difficult to excercise the right and creates the means for the government to confiscate. "Arms" does not just mean guns, it means weapons of war.
>infringing on a citizen's rights to manufacture an object for his own use, (there is no interstate commerce to regulate if the item is not transacted with or it does not leave the state.)
There are a ton of thjnga wrong with the NFA
>>23457299
Alright, let me make this really simple for you, Simon.
>Tyrone and Day'von driving down Skid Row, Ghettoville, USA
>See a member of a rival gang walking out of a KFC
>"sheeeit dawg, cap dis niggas ass"
>Tyrone pulls out his Hi-Point, blasts off half a mag of .380 before the guy is out of range and down the block
>Drives off and plays basketball
>Casualties: 3 Bullet holes in a window, 1 injured bystander, and 1 nigger standing there with shit-filled pants
Scenario 2
>Tyrone and Day'von driving down Skid Row, Ghettoville, USA
>See a member of a rival gang walking out of a KFC
>"sheeeit dawg, cap dis niggas ass"
>Tyrone pulls out his MAC-11, squeezes the trigger and blasts off 32 rounds in 2 seconds.
>Drives off and plays basketball
>Casualties: 8 bullet holes in a window, 4 in a wall, 3 injured bystander, 1 dead bystander, and 1 nigger standing there with shit-filled pants
Don't come at me with some bullshit about whether or not it was acquired illegally or not, your logic will fall to pieces of you try. Rember, we are just debating if full-auto is more deadly than semi-auto.
Vid related for reference for fire speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRP_6JPh98k
America doesnt have a gun problem, it has a nigger problem.
This thread is full of examples
>gangs gonna use em so we should restrict them
Best bet would be to completely unrestrict them and hope the nigger-on-nigger violence sorts itself out.
>>23456957
>>23457075
>>23457088
>>23457132
>>23457204
>>23457238
>>23457242
>>23457290
>>23457299
>>23457314
>>23457437
>>23457441
>>23457489
>>23457559
>>23457563
The only credible response:
Get fucked, commie. 'Murrica. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
>>23457563
I had a runaway magdump on an MP-40 today (ZVS is good ammo, but too light for open bolt weapons)
I got every single shot to hit in a six inch circle firing from the hip. Using a MAC 11 as an example is probably the biggest anti thing you can do. You're taking one extreme and using that for your entire basis. Fuck off.
>>23457563
You should watch more hickok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY
>>23457563
>we are just debating if full-auto is more deadly than semi-auto
No, you're hell bent on RPM and MUH HI CAPACITEE CLIPS alone, cherry picking scenarios where FA could *potentially* cause more damage, ignoring the fact controlled, aimed semi auto fire is much more deadly than full auto fire in nearly every other scenario.
>>23457587
>get fucked
lol, this is who is defending the constitution.
What you morons dont realize is that more people are willing to give up this right then are willing to defend it.
Full auto will never see the light of day cheaply. Mark my words.
>>23457677
>cheaply
oh you have no idea
full auto thread anyone?
>>23457697
these are some nice computer parts schematics
yup
computer parts
you know us nerds, always building computers
>>23457677
>> being this defeatist
>> being one of those people willing to give up his rights
Again, get fucked, commie.
>>23457631
I was waiting for this shit right here. You're saying that FA is not more deadly than SA.
But gee, militaries use FA weapons
>yeah, but then use them for suppression of people with guns. It's less deadly.
So then, the only good use of full-auto weapons is suppressing fire of people who have guns?
>well, yeah!
So then, gangs who attack other armed gang or law enforcement would benefit most from FA weapons then? FA weapons that you think should not be restricted?
>>23457631
You are simple minded if you seriously think that semi auto is more dangerous then full auto in a situation where it is used against citizens.
semi auto requires time to stop and aim, FA does not. With modern compact and high capacity magazines, this is an absurd arguement.
>>23457708
these computer parts are very handy
make your computer much faster
no need to download ram anymore
>>23457723
yup more computer stuff
>>23457722
you really need to go to a range with full auto and see if you can hit shit before talking like you know shit
Hell our military hates full retard as well
Is anyone even acknowledging my previous post about what FA is actually useful for?
>>23457383
>>23457738
This attaches to the cpu right here
>>23457722
>semi auto requires time to stop and aim, FA does not
Full auto isn't just like in your Call of Duty games, you retard. Go shoot something full auto and then tell me how deadly you were compared to a guy who took aimed single shots. I have plenty of experience with FA and even for trained people, most of the ammo goes to waste.
>>23457709
I never even said I was against it. I hate being lumped in with MUH RIGHTS faggots like you. Calm down, find a reason that we need FA. Everyone is so enamored with muh 2nd amendment, no one stops to consider what the people want as a whole.
The majority of weapons used to kill people are handguns
Case closed
>>23457752
I sure do love computer parts
>>23457766
military or range instructor?
Either way how's the job?
Always thought of becoming a part time range instructor
>>23457775
>Calm down, find a reason that we need FA
>reason
how about "shall not be infringed"?
>>23457722
SA is more dangerous even with "compact and high-capacity magazines" because placing the shots against unarmed victims does not exactly require a lot of time and effort. 30 rounds as opposed to 15 rounds? Hardly a difference, typically most people don't fight back if in a gun-free zone and adequate preparation on part of the shooter.
FA is to prevent your own head from getting blown off when in an armed confrontation against other armed people. Less time to hit one person at the cost of more bullets expanded. This is why the military fires in bursts at a distance- less effort to aim, more chance of hitting, at the cost of more ammo and the need for more logistical support.
>>23457785
woops wrong one
>>23457750
Yeah, I did right here.
>>23457718
You said it yourself, FA is good for killing armed police officers and military personell. This is the argument you present, and then expect people to agree that FA should be legalized and widely available.
>>23457718
>But gee, militaries use FA weapons
LMG/GPMG/HMG are a different category altogether.
Nobody really uses burst of FA with rifles, it's pretty useless.
But feel free to talk some more about things you know nothing about.
>So then, gangs who attack other armed gang or law enforcement would benefit most from FA weapons then? FA weapons that you think should not be restricted?
I don't give a shit about what gangs do or don't.
>>23457792
*more bullets expended, ahahah sorry
>>23457788
"shall not be infringed" is a law, not a philosophical argument. It is a law that I personally think should be followed to the dot, but that won't be acknowledged. Lawmakers don't regard the Constitution anymore, so we need to find valid arguments outside of a construct they won't acknowledge. That way, we can get people on our side in a way they believe in, regardless of political factional polarization.
>>23457788
Yeah, stonewall yourself with that argument. Refuse to listen to reason and retreat to your dogma. Then cry about how the other side refuses to listen to reason, and how oppressed you are by politicians who are unable to make 'real compromise.
>>23457815
>Lawmakers don't regard the Constitution anymore, so we need to find valid arguments outside of a construct they won't acknowledge. That way, we can get people on our side in a way they believe in, regardless of political factional polarization.
You misunderstand
You NEVER waver on beliefs. On legislation sure, you can (and must) waver on some things. There must be bargains struck.
But if you make deals over your beliefs you have absolutely no stability.
>>23457802
Precisely. The 2nd Amendment is in place to prevent tyranny, and that also extends to self-defense. We should be able to rebel against our government, if we are not properly represented. That is the basic bottom line of democracy, and is why the gun is the basis upon which this country was founded in the first place- illiterate colonists could be taught how to fight because they were at a technological (and later logistical) equity to their oppressors.
>>23456957
They're fun.
This is America.
Murrika.
/thread
>>23457837
>Making valid arguments
>Bargaining
Get fucked. Dogmatic shits like you are the ones who fuck up every political movement in the first place. You're just as bad as the commies in the USSR who refused to reform with the rest of the regions.
>>23457738
>not posting the full info including ATF statement
when the ATF advertises for you, you're doing something right!
>>23457785
Military, also range meetups with FA owners. Not even US, Czech. But I fucking hate it when retards talk about FA like it'll drop anything you can see just by holding the goddamn trigger and blasting away.
>>23457795
>>23457718
Gangs use .25 Lorcins. This is a fact. It's none of my business what they do because gangs are a social issue with inner city society.
>>23457812
>I don't give a shit about what gangs do or don't.
You don't care when it suits you. You can be right 99% of the time and have all the facts on your side, but when you say some stupid shit like "Oh, I don't care that FA could be useful for gangs seeking to kill police and military forces", you lose credibility and turn off people who might have been sympathetic to your cause.
>>23457852
Right, we totally want a lukewarm fuckstick that doesn't want to upset anyone's feelings and in doing so appeals to the most mediocre denominator.
Enjoy your "reasonable gun legislation"
>>23457857
Nice to meetcha Czech bro
How's the CZ-75 supply doing over there?
>>23457888
You know what the Soviets did when they wanted to make Americans conform to their ideas? They subverted us with liberal beliefs of political correctness which made use feel better.
We need to do the same thing to anti-funs and bend their own "fuck the police" shit in our favor.
>>23457883
>"Oh, I don't care that FA could be useful for gangs seeking to kill police and military forces", you lose credibility and turn off people who might have been sympathetic to your cause.
The gangbangers can't pass a fucking background check and don't care about gun legislation to begin with, you retard.
>>23457888
>Meanwhile, the AM I BEING DETAINED crowd has refreshed the idea of private property rights with dozens of businesses
You guys seen the AK operator link yet?
Still looking for blueprints/measurements.
I wonder if there is a patent anywhere....
>>23457586
As much as I LOVE the idea of all the niggers killing themselves off, I think their nonsense usually involves lots of bystanders.
>>23457950
>brrrrrttt
>>23456957
>The way I see it, Full auto should be available
There is almost no legitimate reason to have full auto firearms. Sure it's fun, but it's the huffing gas and barebacking hookers type of white trash fun.
>>23457919
Oh, look at OP's post and the response to it. I'm saying we should have FA available, albeit with strict regulation to prevent gangbangers from obtaining them. Disagree with this compromise?
>>23457900
The QC and customer care sucks, they cost more than twice as much as in the US and the company gets government contracts without actually having to live up to any standard at all, so I'm not exactly a fan. I have a G19.
Why do we even need semiauto? Single action does all that we need,
>>23457966
thats the ak lightning link right? I have thought that would be neat. . . . .too see a properly licensed person with the right ffl and a sot""
Make one of those
>>23457950
they are keeping schematics locked up tighter than a nun's cunt right now
>>23457966
here is a good side photo
>>23458012
>they are keeping schematics locked up tighter than a nun's cunt right now
LOL yeah right, nobody gives that much of a fuck about a shitty little device a few hours of fucking off in a machine shop with a pair of calipers could reproduce
i am just too lazy to search for the patent, also pretty sure it was a foreign guy who patented it
>>23457977
That's a shame, so is the VZ your guy's national firearm or do you just not really have a sort of symbol for your country's firearms and just happy with everything?
>>23457993
My favorite single action is the 1911
who needs a semi-auto when you have a good old single action 1911
>>23457972
>being this much of an elitist prick
>posting on /k/
kek
>>23456957
The problem with that (and suppressors currently) being Class III is the only requirement is money and time. I agree suppressors should be unregulated but full-giggle should require some sort of aptitude.
>>23458029
You'd be surprised
You won't find it online
My only issue with full autos in their price.
a little difference in metal and it's $1000 more expensive?
>>23458035
>so is the VZ your guy's national firearm
Pretty much, everyone and their dog have one, it was the first non-fudd centerfire semi auto available after 1989. Tons of SKS and nuggets around, too. Cheap AKs came some time later. The AR community is also on the rise, but these are are ridiculously overpriced here compared to the US.
>>23457088
>The way I see it, full auto weapons would be useful in a drive-by situation or a target dense environment.
And you're wrong.
Fully Automatic fire is difficult to control and will reduce your ability to place shots accurately. That will reduce the likelihood that you manage to hit the target you intended to.
It's only used for suppressive fire, and if you are using suppressive fire you're working with teammates.
More rounds fired do not mean more targets hit.
The fallacy here is that fully-automatic fire is somehow more dangerous than semi-automatic fire. The only thing semi-automatic fire is better at is burning through more ammunition.
Was there a constant epidemic of automatic weapons being used in violent crime prior to their ban? No.
The hey-day of fully-automatic weapons in crime was prohibition, and they were really only used for psychological warfare. The same hits they perpetrated with automatic weapons could have been just as effectively enacted with shotguns. But automatic weapons were readily available as World War I surplus and the secondary goal of those hits (which were also quite rare btw) was to terrorize their opposing gangs as well as the police.
tl;dr Automatic weapons are only effective at scaring people.
>>23457405
>>23456994
How is this a valid argument to use?
People are wanting to change the law to infringe and you parrot at them that the law says that you can't.
Don't you see how this makes you look like a retard parroting a phrase you've learned?
At best it makes you look like a stubborn bastard incapable of rational argument.
>>23458087
That's good to hear
Keep your rights protected and expanding man
>>23458095
However you're overlooking the fact that back then we didn't have the same kind of nigger problem we have today, and unlike then, even the poorest gangbangers in the nastiest urban ghettos of the US have more money than the poor people of the 1920s had. The one thing automatic weapons can produce other than converting ammo into noise, is collateral damage.
>>23458095
see
>>23457718
then answer
>>23457975
>>23458095
>The fallacy here is that fully-automatic fire is somehow more dangerous than semi-automatic fire. The only thing semi-automatic fire is better at is burning through more ammunition.
You think gun owners of all people would realize this...where do those missed shots go?
A shot that doesn't hit the target does not disappear, , it keeps going until it hits something.
When we have a semi auto, the shooter gets off 3 rounds before he is taken down by the law abiding citizen.
With an automatic weapon, he can fire off a whole mag before someone can react. What's so hard to understand about 30 pieces of lead being more deadly than 3?
Hey friends, I need some help with my computer parts. I recently bought a parts kit for a 1960s-1970s space age computer that the US military first used in the Vietnam War (I like retro computers, even though this one apparently had a lot of reliability issues compared to the older Soviet computer that the Vietnamese used). How do I make my retro computer automatically compute? I heard it involves drilling another hole in the tower and machining space for some parts that came with the parts kit? Thanks /k/, I sure do love computers.
>>23458198
>m-muh many boolits downrange
By that logic, shotguns are the worst offender second only to DDs.
Faggot.
>>23458202
Never change anon.
>>23458202
Here's a link to the computer kit I bought. What else do I need for automatic computing?
http://www.royaltigerimports.com/mobile/Product.aspx?ProductCode=AR150011
>>23457975
fuck off britbong
>>23456957
>there was a vote to close the MG registry
>effectively banning F/A from common ownership
>the vote said there was a ~2:1 No/Yes result
>it passed anyway
Does that sound fair/legal to you?
>there's a vote to make gay marriage legal
>the vote said there was a 2:1 Yes/No result
>it didn't pass
Ask liberals if that's fair.
>>23458249
Oh, silly me! That's not a computer kit! Wrong link haha!
>>23458198
Think about at the range how safety conscious people are, where it's always about "know your target and what's beyond."
Well what happens when some guy using a full-auto in self defense sprays 10 or so shots, the first two killing the intruder, but the rest punching their way into his neighbors walls?
>>23458232
Oh no, shotguns have a tight grouping. Pellets will land where they're supposed to. FA guns (according to /k/) are impossible to control; shots will fly wildly around a room, only 1 or 2 will actually hit the target. They're much safer.
>>23458063
like this?
>>23458286
You should be using frangibles if that's a concern where you live anyway, in case of missed shots.
>>23458012
Look simple enough to replicate just from the pictures.
All you need is a thin piece of bent and trimmed sheet metal that reaches up behind the ejector going all the way back to the sear to trip the hammer, ingeniously the plate is mounted on a single point on the inside of the receiver with a crude leafspring style reset for the entire plate.
I would get it would take a person who know a bit about engineering and working with sheet metal a few hours to recreate it just by looking at the images.
>>23458259
So you disagree. Pity, this is why we will NEVER get the right to full autos back, too many people unable to make REAL compromise.
>>23458263
>Ask liberals if that's fair.
One is for guns.
The other is for people.
>>23458249
might need to mill the shelf on the lower down a little, and add a 3rd pin hole
since it's a pin hole you will need a reamer the right size
>>23458316
Then you pull out the
>So political corruption is okay as long as it's for something you agree with?
>>23458288
>Oh no, shotguns have a tight grouping. Pellets will land where they're supposed to.
You were talking about a streets and missed shots, don't backpedal now, faggot. All of the pellets from a missed shot will fly until it hits something, like you said.
Do you know what a 00 buck pattern looks like at 100 yards?
>>23458313
why does your text even sound British and gay?
fuck you, fuck off out of here, my ancestors fought a war so we don't have to listen to shit like this
>>23458322
Anyone know the pin hole size? And does the pin come with the kit, or? (haven't received it yet)
>Muh rights to full auto!
>Muh full auto saves lives!
>Semi auto is moar deadly!
>Criminals don't aim with full auto!
>I need muh full auto even though I can't afford the ammunition for the added firing rate!
>Tyranny! Constitution! Buttfuck!
>>23458363
who knows, google it
>>23458403
You're right, we do need select-fire assault rifles like we are constitutionally entitled to.
We also need explosives.
>>23458334
Yes. A shotgun blast is more deadly that a single 9mm bullet. Is this what you wanted to hear? is this what you disagree with?
>>23458061
Issue with an aptitude requirement is that it almost always requires a fee. A fee which can be prohibitive to a poorer user and goes right into the pocket of someone the government likes.
>>23458448
>a single 9mm bullet
--> --> --> v
10 9mm bullets
Fix'd
>>23458338
Old picture, but I'm not taking another one. Is this really the best argument you can make?
>>23458448
What I disagree with is your hysterical insistence that FA is more deadly because it can - under certain circumstances and when you compare it to certain semi guns - maybe, potentially, cause more collateral damage.
>>23458491
I was just saying I don't like you, there was no real argument there.
Why would I come to /k/ to argue?
Jesus I thought I was avoiding this thread, what the fuck am I doing here?
>>23456957
>Convince me otherwise.
Actually, why don't you convince us that it's a good idea to restrict fully automatic weapons?
Is it justified by a compelling governmental interest?
Is it narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest?
Is the law or policy the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there isn't a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest?
Ultimately, OP, you need to prove to us that fully-automatic weaponry was such a threat to the lives of American citizens that it needed, and continues to need to be, restricted to the point of, essentially, being banned.
>>23458464
So? It already comes with a huge fee. Either way it costs money.
>>23458486
Uh, no. In the same span of time I can fire 1 9mm round, I can fire 10 pellets from a shotgun.
This is the essence of the SA vs. FA argument, volume of fire over a period of time. Stop wriggling around the issue.
>>23458502
It's volume of fire over a peiod of time. FA can simply put more rounds down range faster, regardless of accuracy. That is more potential for damage. The only people cannot acknowledge that is because it contradicts a long established (and false) position that says otherwise.
>>23458534
I'm not the anon you were arguing with, and I was making a joke about how ten 9mm bullets might not even scale up to the killing power of a shell of 00 buckshot.
>>23458532
Hm. One sec.
>>23458604
Ah, sorry about that then.
>given this new court case trying to repeal the NFA
What court case are you referring too, because this is news to me?
>>23458670
is good
>>23458698
http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk
>>23456999
training to be proficient with FA is expensive.
>>23456999
I've also played with a guy named That Guy on insurgency, and another person who's a trip on here... i forget their name though
>>23456957
1.Shall not be infringed means all firearms
2. Fully auto is actually worse for mass murder than semi, burst is also worse. This is because FA is for suppressing fire against police, while semi is more for stuff like prairie dog hunting, which is essentially what mass murdering is. (from a tactics standpoint) I know that sounds fucked, but it's true.
>>23458890
THIS
>>23458890
FA could encourage a retard to magdump ultrafast and not aim all his shots, which could help really.
>>23456957
Full auto is the worst for literally anything besides suppressive fire and extremely close range. Unless its a full auto .22, firing more than one round at once would just result in wasting ammo. That being said, I believe we should have the right to burn through ammo 6 times as fast if we want too.
>>23458973
>That guy that converted a pre-86 m16 to a belt fed 22 mg
>>23457105
^This
But, technically, the full auto would be better than a bolt action. Just don't hold the trigger down after each shot, as opposed to taking one shot before a brief pause, another shot and another pause, etc.
>>23458995
Absolutely glorious.
>>23458973
I would disagree. If many shootings, we see people who have been shot only once survive. If someone used a FA weapon, they would likely not hold down the trigger and just empty a magazine wildly like many here think they would. They would probably fire in bursts, hitting with each target with 2 or 3 bullets. In this way you would me more accurate, considering you would not need to be jerking the trigger to fire a few shots accurately.
>>23459055
>If someone used a FA weapon, they would likely not hold down the trigger and just empty a magazine wildly like many here think they would.
Considering the aptitude of most mass shooters, you fucking bet they would.
Besides, a good portion of them tends to finish off injured targets or put more than one round into them to begin with.
A select fire weapon offers exactly nothing to mass shooters besides a chance to waste ammo, need reloads more often and likely get stopped sooner and after less casualties.
>>23456994
Ideally, this should be the only argument we should need, because it is the law of the land, but these assholes aren't playing by the rules, so parroting the 2A won't mean jack shit to these people. Remember, gun control is illegal, and criminals don't care about the law.
>>23459055
I doubt the average person with absolutely no experience in dealing with full auto would be able to control it enough to get 2 hits in one burst. Also, shot placement of course is more important than the number of times your hit. So semi auto will always be the most effective mode of fire. And even if the baddy is getting most rounds on target, he would miss more also, making him run out of ammo quicker.
>>23456957
To skip all the political bullshit about how full auto would not cause an increase in crime or deaths:
People should be able to do and own whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. This is what's necessary to have a liberal (actual liberal, what today is called libertarian), free society.
>>23459115
>>23459094
Just assume the owner of the FA practiced at a range and honed his skills. You can't act like every mass shooter is totally incompetent. And also, FA would be great for killing cops or armed citizens, another reason it's banned (because criminals are the only people who would want to kill cops anyway).
>>23458744
If I'm going on a suicide mission, then I've got my life savings to use- cost be damned.
>>23459210
How is FA any better at killing cops than semi auto? The primary purpose of full auto, or burst weapons is suppressive fire, which while it is more likely to result in collateral damage, it is by nature less dangerous than controlled and aimed fire.
>>23459210
>Just assume the owner of the FA practiced at a range and honed his skills.
Jesus Christ, would you stop dragging the fucking goalposts further and further?
>And also, FA would be great for killing cops or armed citizens
No, it wouldn't, it would be good to keep them down, but you sure as fuck aren't going to be able to do that alone, against multiple LEOs and with a goddamn rifle.
You're bending over backwards coming up with completely moronic reasons to keep the ridiculous status quo regarding machine guns.
>>23459274
>No, it wouldn't, it would be good to keep them down, but you sure as fuck aren't going to be able to do that alone, against multiple LEOs and with a goddamn rifle.
So, the only use of a machine gun is for cartels and gangs to kill governement peacekeepers? That's a great reason for legalization of machine guns.
>>23459210
>FA would be great for killing cops or citizens
Loluwutm8?
If it was great for killing anything, than our military would hardly use semi auto
Scenario 2
>Tyrone and Day'von driving down Skid Row, Ghettoville, USA
>See a member of a rival gang walking out of a KFC
>"sheeeit dawg, cap dis niggas ass"
>Tyrone pulls out his MAC-11, squeezes the trigger and blasts off 32 rounds in 2 seconds.
>Drives off and plays basketball
>Casualties: 32 rounds wasted, 2 windows hit, 30 bullets into the air and 1 nigger standing there with shit-filled pants
FTFY
>>23459329
The question isn't why SHOULD full auto be legal, it's why SHOULDN'T it.
And no, potential crimes are not a valid reason to ban anything.
>>23459329
So you say FA weapons are very inaccurate and cannot be aimed. Shots fly wildly everywhere?
No wonder they're banned, they sound like a real danger to the shooter and anyone around them.
>>23459234
If you're that determined then just get an illegal one.
Most people will use whatever they can get easily.
>>23459318
>So, the only use of a machine gun is for cartels and gangs to kill governement peacekeepers?
Because cartel members buy their guns legally.
Because weapon bans work from presumption of guilt, assuming that wanting to own one means you're going to use it maliciously.
We could argue about how all you "need" is a muzzleloader for hunting because guns with modern cartridges are too dangerous.
>>23459403
>Because cartel members buy their guns legally.
They could buy legally, if you guys had your way with your NO RESTRICTION, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED bullshit.
Look at OP's post: do you agree with his proposal?
>>23459358
remember were talking about ghetto Tyrone here firing 32 rounds in 2 seconds. do you really expect him to have accurate shooting considering he is also moving in a vehicle?
exactly smd
you should be able to get FAs if you can pass any background check, and also you should only not be able to get a firearm if your a violent offender
>all this hair-splitting, backpedaling, conjecture and smarmy bullshit
Christ, just say it outright, you want to keep FA banned because it's scary, no need to embarrass yourself trying to rationalize it.
>>23457204
>at best
Ahem. You mean at worst, right fuckface?
MA here; gun control and laws don't do JACK SHIT.
>>23459345
hey buddy I'm on your side
see here
>>23459449
>>23458099
>I don't know how rights work
>>23459428
>Buy gun legally (assuming the person buying passes current background checks)
>Gun is registered in your name
>Cartels are totally okay with this instead of garage guns and stolen guns
>>23459428
>Look at OP's post: do you agree with his proposal?
No, the whole NFA is fucking bullshit to begin with.
SBR, SBS, machine guns and suppressors should be subject to standard background checks and nothing else, no retarded tax stamps or waiting until the state graciously allows you to own something you have a right to own.
If full auto was less restricted would more guns be available? Or is that import restrictions keeping guns off the civilian markets?
>>23459358
and see your trying to make your own argument when I literally said nothing about not being able to aim or control recoil.
shill/Jew/fungrabber pls go
>>23456957
Why should full auto be regulated in the first place? That is the question that really needs to be asked.
>>23459506
every single company would make their firearms with all sorts of fun burst and FA modes. I'm sure there would still be semi auto firearms but you can get semi and FA in one combo so why not
>>23457972
Your two examples are victimless crimes and should be completely legal. The most you could say is that they *might* be harmful to the parties involved.
Owning FA doesn't even reach that level. It's completely harmless and therefore there is absolutely zero philosophical or moral argument that can support restricting it.
>>23457383
>defense against armed government
>Oh, so you're a cop killing psycho, Anon?
That's what they'll say, and you know it.
>>23459578
I mean would we get things like the g36?
>>23457242
>if full auto is less effective, than why do you need it?
Because there is no reason I shouldn't.
Why do you need a 1000cc bike? It's certainly less fuel efficient and you're more likely to kill yourself or someone else.
Faggot.
>>23459684
We would theoretically be able to purchase any FA arm we wanted. All depends on what the manufacturers do, and you fucking bet they would pump out civilian select fires if they could.
Someone post the old catalog that had MGs and 20mm rifles.
I don't know a simpler way to show this. Maybe the picture will show you my point, i tried to make it so easy a kindergartner could understand it.
But hey, you guys are too set in your ways. You'll dodge the issue somehow, but you should really be able to see how one of these situations is worse than the other. Your arguments are circular and make no sense (FA is less accurate and faster shooting, so that means safer!), but you parrot them endlessly. I hope I see the machine gun registry opened up again in my lifetime, but seeing how you want to do it, I know that won't happen.
>>23459747
Replace the top with a single shot and the bottom with a semi firing three shots. Your argument would basically be the same.
It's not why, it's why not.
>>23459747
>TFW you will never protect grove street with your homies
Feels bad man...
>>23459784
No, the scenario is:
Car drive by. Shooter has a limited amount of time to send out a volley of fire. He can either do that with a SA and have time for 3, or a FA and empty the 32 round magazine. That's the whole point.
>>23458302
just my .02, but I truly believe this gun should never have had that bastardry.
>>23458413
this made my night. thank you, anon. I was going to try and literally reinvent the process on my own time.
>>23458505
the ride never ends, dude.
>>23458510
I second this sentiment. being that my parents were antifun, and I didn't get to play with anything that had a giggle switch until long after the "law" had been passed, it is remarkably difficult to even get into the fun house unless you're a rich fag like many people continue to believe elevates their already over-bloated egos.
why should socioeconomic status be the main determining factor when trying find a form of entertainment?
>>23459452
this has essentially been my thought for some time. I know that if anyone wants to do something, legality can go fuck itself.
>>23459747
>OMG MUH GANGS MUH POOR BYSTANDERS
>OMG MUH GANGS MUH POOR BYSTANDERS
>OMG MUH GANGS MUH POOR BYSTANDERS
This is your argument.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that gang or cartel members buy their guns legally and while as of now they're restricted to hipoints, in case of the registry becoming open they would get tons of FA guns - again, legally - which would result in a massive increase in collateral gang-related deaths.
The fact is they don't. They aren't. They wouldn't. And it wouldn't.
Now get the fuck out, you're arguing like a petulant child and while you claim that you're pro 2a, you pull shit out of your ass, treat wild conjecture as facts and use the same rhetorics as gun grabbers.
>>23459852
>2014
>Still giving a fuck about Grove Street
Times change, man.
>>23459874
Like I said, the argument is basically the same- that it can be more deadly.
A single shot would only shoot once in this short amount of time, a semi would do three.
Ban semi, save lives.
>>23459916
Its just not the same...
The late 80's early 90's vibe was the best.
>>23457486
"ordinance" is a local regulation
"ordnance" is munitions
>>23459578
There would still be semi for the hunting/fudd/precision crowds and the anti states.
>>23459874
>That's the whole point.
That's also the whole point of proposed magazine capacity restrictions or semi auto restrictions.
You act like it's common sense that semi auto should be legal, but anything capable of sending more lead downrange should be illegal.
How do you justify that arbitrary bullshit? The only argument you have is "well law-abiding citizens shouldn't have it because then criminals will all magically have it and now they don't which I know for a fact but don't ask me for anything to support my argument".
>>23459901
That is the point. People here want NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO RESTRICTION AND NO REGISTRY. Right now there are a limited amount of FA guns in circulation; acquiring more requires a complex smuggling or manufacturing network. If full autos are legalized, more will be dumped into the system.
The process would be immensely simplified, making it infinitely easier to acquire them. Right now, hardly ANY crimes are committed in the US with automatic guns, thanks to the tight control and regulation of them. Throwing out that regulation would be a mistake.
>>23459916
I don't get why people still have a hard on for that shitty old game.
>>23459747
>Making the shooter black
You fucking racist piece of shit.
>>23459989
Hold on, not everyone here is that extreme.
Personally, I only support a basic background check. No registration, no restriction. "Have you been convicted of a violent crime? Do you have any outstanding warrants? Are you a legal citizen of the US? Okay cool have a gun."
That's it.
>>23459985
>>23459917
Politics works by compromises, you sacrifice a little of what you have and we do the same.
We have sacrificed machine guns in order to keep our semi-autos; there had to be a deal somewhere and that's where we made it. As far as i'm concerned, this is fair. Courts have largely agreed with this. The gun community, however, is largely as bad as the antigunners.
NO COMPROMISE, NO SURRENDER is the rallying cry for both sides. You have to see that there needs to be a middle ground.
>inb4 the cake comic, that has nothing to do what with what I'm saying, but idiots will be triggered by my use of 'compromise' and post it anyway.
>>23460061
>We made this compromise
>It was passed illegally
>>23460018
I honestly think the registration is acceptable for automatics because of the force multiplier that automatic fire provides (and this is where we disagree). I still think we should be able to acquire and manufacture more, but I think they should be tightly controlled. To me, this is a reasonable and realistic for both parties.
>>23456957
The reason full autos and the like were regulated the way they are in the first place is because of the environment ripe for crime that the government at the time created with enacting Prohibition.
If we would have never had prohibition, the NFA would never have been enacted.
>>23460073
Have any articles detailing this? The only proof I've ever seen of this is a grainy screenshot of the vote.
Besides, if it didn't pass then how did it become law? Surely the politicians voting against this would say something, considering they would outnumber the people who would want it. I find it kinda hard to believe they would say "meh, I voted against it and it didn't pass, but I'll let you pass it anyway."
>>23460061
compromising constitutional rights.
where will it end?
>>23459747
>showing every single bullet path going through someone
oh nowwww I see it I'm scared of duh gunz nao
>>23457815
>"shall not be infringed" is a law, not a philosophical argument. It is a law that I personally think should be followed to the dot, but that won't be acknowledged. Lawmakers don't regard the Constitution anymore, so we need to find valid arguments outside of a construct they won't acknowledge. That way, we can get people on our side in a way they believe in, regardless of political factional polarization.
How about, if you try and take a single gun or round of ammo from me, I'll fucking kill you. If you come armored, I'll kill you when you sleep at night.
>>23460363
I randomly drew the lines. The point was to show that 1 situation was more deadly than another. Do you realize that some shots would land on either side of a person?
>>23460061
Here is the vote for the Hughes Amendment.
It was illegally ratified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ#t=338
You can watch where the chairman makes an arbitrary decision that the Ayes have it from a verbal vote whereas the recorded vote shows that the Hughes Amendment was overwhelmingly denied passage.
>>23457563
This proves both that niggers are dangerous creatures, can access illegal weapons regardless of BATFE, and the right to bear white man arms should not be infringed, for white people.
>>23460377
lol
>>23460408
You drew one line too many from it's magazine size for that little Mac10.
Lrn2guns.
>>23460424
lol
>>23460377
dubs confirm it.
>>23457815
>hey guise, let's use manchild democratic politics to justify our inalienable legal rights to jews.
>law makers don't regard constitutional law, so we should be sacrificing more blood and treasure to elect a new batch of lawmakers that may disregard constitutional law if they feel like it.
>gib shekels plox
>rinse, repeat
NRA pls go.
Fuck that shit. Repeal all gun laws and make it so that crimes committed using firearms and violent felons (rape, murder, robbery, etc) in possession of a firearms have a MINIMUM prison sentence of 50 years (or death, depending on the circumstance).
SHALL.NOT.BE.INFRINGED.
>>23458835
could it have possibly been Chiki Briki?
>>23459683
And I'll very delicately explain to them that a police officer is someone in a position where they walk a thin line between maintaining rights within the Constitution's measure and stepping on those rights. I'll also (and do often) use evidence from the dozens of instances where governments made up of "normal people" have stepped on their citizens' rights as a result of an inferiorly-armed populace.
>>23460958
>hey guise, let's propose overthrowing the government RITE NAO with plenty of people being coddled by sedative lifestyles and luxuries
>becuz our point of view will go over well with people, ESPESHULLY if we push our viewpoints realllllly hard on them and don't explain ourselves
top fucking kek homo
>>23457829
>We refuse to "listen to reason"
>You refuse to respect, protect, and obey the constitution
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that you should be able to dictate what is "reasonable" when you're violating the constitution.
You're probably some statist faggot that's never taken an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. And therefore could never understand what it sounds like when some retard thinks its acceptable to dictate what is a "reasonable" restriction of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Particularly when you same people are the ones that truly refuse to compromise or see reason. Every few years after a "compromise," there's a new call for "compromise" which further erodes 2nd amendment freedoms. Doesn't seem reasonable to me when your side gets to move the goal posts whenever they want to.
>>23461217
>Constitution
>Trying to argue against people who ignore the Constitution with the Constitution
>you're a faggot who's never taken an oath
MUHREEEEN pls go
>>23461217
Not to say that "compromises" which take away rights are ever good, but compromises which get them back are pretty darn good. Especially when, politically, people don't think you're a nutjob (not to say that you're wrong).
>>23456957
Honestly I'm OK with full-auto weapons being very restricted.
Imagine a guy at a downtown stadium with an actual .30 caliber machinegun and tons of belted ammunition holed up with a good vantage point. Guy could kill hundreds of people in very short order and he'd be nigh-impossible to stop. Maybe it'd be ok if it was all Raiders fans, idk.
>>23461231
The problem is that people think that it is acceptable to ignore the constitution at all.
If they don't like their constitutionally guaranteed rights, they can feel free to forfeit them. But they don't get to speak for the rest of us.
>>23461356
As a previous liberal, now turned libertarian/non-voter, I can tell you that I was not brought to realize the importance of Constitutional rights by a bunch of "M-MUH FREEDUMS" and "SHALL-NOT-BEEEEH-INFRINJED" cockmonglers.
It was a friend of mine (former operator) who I talked to a lot. He would logically explain to me the problems with gun restrictions on a rational basis. Basically turned me from Cawadootie-fudd-"dun need dem salt weapons"-kid to super proguns. How?
He took the time to explain things to me in a reasonable, rational fashion, and treated me like a human being with a natural inclination towards curiosity and who has his own flaws.
TL;DR: /k/unts should stop being SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED faggots who refuse to understand the viewpoint of another person, and then claim to be victimized and completely understand the problem. Not all of us have had the opportunity to grow up in an area or family where firearm safety and marksmanship are encouraged or even allowed.
>>23461326
Are you high?
>>23461326
Once again we come to the argument of "Because it could be misused..."
If we apply that same rhetoric to every item then you may no longer use the computer, because hackers misuse it.
You may no longer own cars, because drunk drivers misuse them.
You may no longer use writing devices, because they have been used in crimes.
Do you see where I am going?
When are we as a nation going to start holding just the criminal accountable for their actions, rather than punishing everyone else for their actions.
This is the exact same thing that created the NFA, GCA, FOPA, and other restrictive litigation - often in response to an environment created by the US government, such as during Prohibition, and now the War on Drugs.
>>23456957
Why spend all the time and money on regulating fully automatic weapons. Are machine guns really a problem? All the criminals who want to spray each other with Uzis dont give two shits about the laws regulating their nines.
>>23461428
>hurrr he treated me like the special snowflake i am
>not all of us had the opportunity
>dat Narcissism
>dat victim complex
>not liberal
>>23461428
Let me ask you this - while you were a CoD player, did you believe unfailingly in your freedom of speech and ignore rules against harassment and vulgar language in the Activision Terms of Use and Xbox Live EULA for the game?
>>23461526
>hurr he treated me like the special snowflake I am
Most people like to think that they're individuals worthy of consideration.
>not all of us had the opportunity
Most people in blue states aren't really conditioned to understand firearms or what it's like to be around them. We hear a balloon pop and assume it's a gun (I did anyway till I shot a gun).
>dat Narcissism, dat victim complex
Again, assuming people should be talked to like they have unique standpoints (spoilers: they DO) is not narcissism.
>not liberal
I support full legalization of all firearms and explosives, want conceal/open carry legalized here, want drugs like weed to be legalized, am sick of SJW's shitting up my life (again, I live in NJ), have worked in a hospital and think healthcare should stay private, am sick of Jamal's various mugging/raping tactics (I go to college in a shitty urban area), and take martial arts because we're not allowed to strap here and want to be able to defend myself the best I can regardless.
The fact that I respect other people and am not a huge cunt does not make me liberal.
>>23461543
I'm not sure what your question is implying. I would go on games with a deep southern accent, change my avatar to be black (Xbox Live), call myself Tyrone, and generally go from lobby to lobby asking for fried chicken.
>>23461326
How the hell would a guy lug a 20+ pound machine gun with "tons of belted ammunition" get into a good spot in a stadium without getting spotted and BTFO by police?
>>23461678
I'm honestly more scared of pic related than that.
>>23461646
Were you ever kicked from servers because of how you expressed yourself?
>>23461690
Yeah, well, that's a force of fucking nature right there.
>>23461697
Nope. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but go ahead.
>>23461428
>Not all of us got to grow up in an area or family where firearm safety and marksmanship[ are encouraged or even allowed.
That's an awfully big assumption you're making there friend. I grew up with some very liberal parents in California. Not very gun friendly here. Guns were and are the devil here.
I grew up and decided that buying a gun to feel better at night in my dangerous neighborhood was a good idea. Took a couple classes. Liked it. Bought more guns. Really liked it.
The fact of the matter is, shall not be infringed IS a valid argument. Unless you choose to ignore and intentionally misinterpret what the constitution CLEARLY states.
Would it be more helpful if a clear, easily understood individual with a valid argument took the forum to teach the masses? Obviously. What you fail to account for is that some of these people WON'T LISTEN. No matter how superior the argument. These same radicals are the ones making the push against the second amendment to slowly erode our right to keep and bear arms until it no longer exists. So should someone be surprised when a less articulate individual gets angry about it and spits out the easiest argument that they're capable of?
>>23461732
My point is you had unfettered rights for your freedom of expression. They were not infringed upon so you could make an ass of yourself.
It is like that with all of our rights from the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed" may only be listed within the frame of the 2nd amendment, however, it equally applies to all of them.
Your freedom of speech, your freedom to have a religion or not. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a speedy trial, with a jury of your peers. Your right not to incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.
All of these things are the very backbone of our nation. When one is infringed upon, it opens up the cracks that make break the others.
Shall not be infringed is just a very simplistic way of saying "Support the Bill of Rights completely, because if you don't support them all, then you can lose them all."
If you had any interest in the history of our nation, you should have already known this without being pulled aside and explained this. Unfair taxation without representation and the attempted confiscation of firearms is what kicked off our war for Independence.
>>23461759
All of what you said here is pretty true.
And trust me, I know what it's like when people refuse to listen for their own reasons. My dad's a huge fudd who believes shit like "dun need dat 'salt rifle" and "'salt rifle for huntin' durr will take that thing apart". He even said "assault rifles are weapons of mass destruction" recently.
What's important is that the majority of people aren't fucked up in the head, just ignorant of experiences like mine. The majority of people *can* be made to turn against someone like Feinstein or Cuomo once an empathetic and articulate person shows up.
I'd venture to say that some of the autists in this thread are just as bad as uber-liberals at understanding an opposing viewpoint and dealing with it.
>>23461844
that may break*
>>23461844
As with the other anon, absolutely everything you said is true (including my making an ass of myself).
However, what I'm saying is that "shall not be infringed" is not a valid argument when arguing against liberals who disregard the Constitution. Completely refusing to empathize with an opposing viewpoint removes one's ability to subvert said viewpoint. I know that a nice picture of "smashing the stonewall with reason" sounds nice. However the best effect you'll get with forcing an idea on someone (assuming they're very weak-willed) is indoctrination which they don't really understand and aren't able to support with a basis of reason. People are people and they need to be reasoned with, and to reason with them, we need to understand where they're coming from.
