Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: nenothtu

And redefining the 2nd does not respect the 2nd.


And.....the 2nd was not exactly established to fight against roaming bands of Indians.

Absolutely clueless.

We have to recognize that the founders could not have foreseen the future of weaponry,

That isn't true.

The musket, and cannon were 'cutting' edge technology of it's time.

They new technology would progress, and it didn't matter how 'good' arms got.

They secured the right to keep, and bear arms.

Because they knew there would come a time. When the people in the future. Would have to break the chains that held them down.

That was immortalized in that other enduring document the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

www.founding.com...

The second was written as the means to accomplish that.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Answerwww.paladin-press.com...


THAT'S how .

That is the book that I was talking about.

It seems a mystery to some that 'machining' can be done with simple tools, like a file and hacksaw. Firearms can be made with barrels that are nothing more than a piece of pipe.

That set of plans is just one among many. the underground is circulating plans for an "R-5 SMG" built on the same general plan as a "Sidewinder" SMG from around 1979. it devastatingly simple, and as accurate as pointing your finger at a target.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Answerwww.paladin-press.com...


THAT'S how .

That is the book that I was talking about.

It seems a mystery to some that 'machining' can be done with simple tools, like a file and hacksaw. Firearms can be made with barrels that are nothing more than a piece of pipe.

That set of plans is just one among many. the underground is circulating plans for an "R-5 SMG" built on the same general plan as a "Sidewinder" SMG from around 1979. it devastatingly simple, and as accurate as pointing your finger at a target.

If I remember correctly, Soldier of Fortune Magazine had a cover photo in the late 1970's featuring the sidewinder, with an article about it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's pretty much how the government operates when it comes to idea established by academics that then ends up being legislated on by the government. It's actually follows a flowchart pattern: ignore science/academics in the field, invent new rhetoric and strawmans about it, pretend those are the argument, legislate accordingly.

Except when it comes to global warming.

Like gun owners the planet is out to get us.

Nope. The government does the same damn thing with Global Warming. Both the right and the left ignore the scientists to tout their own realities on how it works. You got the left overhyping doom models and you have the right pretending it isn't happening. Both are outside reality and both are outside what scientists are saying. So you are wrong. Nice try though.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

In my state the accusation does it.

BS..

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: nenothtu

That link was awe-inspiring!

And yes, a former smith ought to know better. The machinist drawings for these weapons have been out there 30+ years, and a competent machinist can make one in his basement in between an hour and a half and 2 hours.

I'm guessing it might take an Afghan 12 year old up to 4 hours, considering all the hand work he would have to do.

I'm a competent machinist. No... no a machinist can not make a complete rifle in his basement in 2 hours.

Can a competent person make a VERY crude smooth bore single-shot firearm using a basic workshop? Yes.

Are there parts kits out there to complete a rifle after you've manufactured your own receiver? Sure.

The point that I was making, and I believe the other gentleman was along the same lines, is that you can't make an entire modern rifle without machining processes.

Just because you can bend a shovel into an AK receiver, doesn't mean you have any of the other parts to make it into a complete rifle. You still have to BUY a parts kit with all the other parts or have the machinery to make those parts.

The "plans that have been out there" I was referring to were not for a rifle. They are for a variety of sub machineguns. None that I know of are selective fire, but they're darned sure not single shot, either. they are full-auto only, and yes, can be made in a couple of hours if you know what you're about in a machine shop.

As far as "modern rifles" go, the gunsmiths in Darra in the northwest frontier of Afghanistan have been making them by hand for decades. i know for sure they were creating AK clones of captured Russian AKs in the 80's, and am reliably informed they have been at it for decades before that, with whatever rifles were considered "modern" at the time.

I know you're not telling me that an Afghan squatting in a mud hut on a dusty street with a file and an anvil is more competent than you are at fabricating arms - you're much smarter than that, and I'm sure much better at your trade than that.

An AK is no more complex than a flintlock - in some ways it's LESS complex, yet flintlocks were made entirely by hand, including rifling the bores, for a very long time. You are probably right that it would take more than a couple hours, though, from block of steel to finished AK. I'd imagine it could be done in under a week, however, if you had to work all by yourself starting from scratch.

True enough that it would be highly specialized work, but by no means impossible, and for the man that can do it, there would be an endless supply of money in the making.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Answer

You make a very good point. It's true that gun related deaths have been on a steady decline. I know it's easy to correlate to the increase in gun ownership to the decrease in violent crime, but correlation does not equal causation.

Read carefully and you'll see that I explicitly avoided making that correlation because, as you said, it's not provable. I said that crime does not go up when gun laws are relaxed. I never said that gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violent crime because there are no facts to support that claim.

It could be that violent crimes are decreasing as a result of the increased "police state" style of policing that has been going on since the early 70s and the advent of the "drug war". Of course, it could also be because more people are armed. It's hard to say.

It is due to a combination of factors. Again, I never said gun ownership has led to a decrease in crime... simply that more guns have not led to rising violent crime rates.

I think it's a discussion worth having. If nothing comes of it, I would accept that, but at least we would have talked about it.

The discussion has been had... NUMEROUS times. The problem is, the anti side wants to do away with the majority of privately-owned firearms, increase the prices across the board, and make it extremely difficult for any one to purchase a firearm. Their idea of "compromise" means that we give up our rights and they get to set up their imaginary "gun-free" utopia that the rational minded among us know will never exist. The anti-gun groups have never based their arguments on fact and that is why they continue to lose. The anti-gun folks' idea of "reasonable restrictions" are not even close to reasonable.

The simple fact that the group of folks who are A) ignorant about every aspect of a certain pastime and B) vehemently against the pastime can dictate what is a "reasonable" restriction is an asinine notion and an obvious attempt at control. They're trying to force their "guns are bad" beliefs on others and it's no different than a religious group trying to change laws based on their "holy scripture."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except I don't see many pretending it isn't happening only questioning the degree or the cause.

originally posted by: nenothtu


I know you're not telling me that an Afghan squatting in a mud hut on a dusty street with a file and an anvil is more competent than you are at fabricating arms - you're much smarter than that, and I'm sure much better at your trade than that.

That's the comparison that you keep trying to make that's total BS.

Some of your points are legitimate, and then you say something like that and bring us right back to where this debate originated.

"An Afghan suqatting in a mud hut on a dustry street with a file and an anvil" is not fabricating functioning AK's from raw materials. That statement is a gross oversimplification of the process and it's false.

It takes a skilled craftsman to produce a working, legitimate, combat firearm from raw materials. Period, end of discussion. All the other posts about "well this guy with obvious skill made a homemade gun that kinda worked" is just semantics.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It should also be noted, good or bad, that Japan doesn't have the same drug culture that the US has. From what I understand about Japan (correct me if I'm wrong), drug use is more socially frowned upon than it is here in the states. This discrepancy coupled with the US' insistence on being as hard stanced as possible about drugs creates an escalation of force that causes the levels of violence that we see in the states is the likely answer to our murder rates.

Consider this. What will the authorities in Japan do if they catch you with drugs? What will they do in the States? Same question, but selling drugs now?

Guns probably play a role in a certain percentage of the preventable murders in the states, but I'd be willing to bet that many of the murders in the States would happen regardless of access to firearms. Just because that is what gangsters do here.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Sunwolf
a reply to: ScientificRailgun



Wounded knee.

You were at wounded knee? Wow. Someone call Guinness!

Also, the Native Americans at Wounded Knee weren't U.S. Citizens. It wasn't until 1924 that Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship.

Wrong Wounded Knee.

Wounded Knee Incident

Yes, Indians were "citizens" in 1973.

Wow.

You really ARE a little rusty on your US history, aren't you?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except I don't see many pretending it isn't happening only questioning the degree or the cause.

I disagree. I've seen plenty of people say that Global Warming isn't happening. I've heard people say they think that only Climate Change is happening, but I certainly have seen plenty deny Global Warming. Though this is the wrong thread to discuss that, so I'm not going to go to far into this here.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Sunwolf
a reply to: ScientificRailgun



Wounded knee.

You were at wounded knee? Wow. Someone call Guinness!

Also, the Native Americans at Wounded Knee weren't U.S. Citizens. It wasn't until 1924 that Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship.

Wrong Wounded Knee.

Wounded Knee Incident

Yes, Indians were "citizens" in 1973.

Wow.

You really ARE a little rusty on your US history, aren't you?

The poster said TWO words.

"Wounded Knee"

How was I to glean from that, the poster meant a 1973 incident, and not an 1890 massacre.

Of note, is that the 1973 incident didn't involve the attempted disarmament of the AIM protesters, whereas the Wounded Knee massacre of 1890 was directly related to the United States attempting to disarm the Native American population there. On top that, after my post, the poster who SAID "Wounded Knee" did not dispute my timeline.

You were saying?

Hmmm.... Just thought I'd throw a wrench in the discussion.

Guns are good at protecting the wrong people, so let's give everyone guns to protect the "right" people.

Trust yourself, no one else - you are free to distrust everyone. If you distrust them enough, you'll always carry.

Who are the "right" people? - the ones who win.

Wait till there is a shootout between your government and you - you'll prove they're wrong - I just know it!

Thank God people don't stand the authorities at gunpoint to keep them from taking your money - imagine what authorities would do without money to arm the "right" people... why every election you'd be in a shootout to find out who was "right".

The people come first and you have a gun to prove it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It should also be noted, good or bad, that Japan doesn't have the same drug culture that the US has. From what I understand about Japan (correct me if I'm wrong), drug use is more socially frowned upon than it is here in the states. This discrepancy coupled with the US' insistence on being as hard stanced as possible about drugs creates an escalation of force that causes the levels of violence that we see in the states is the likely answer to our murder rates.

Consider this. What will the authorities in Japan do if they catch you with drugs? What will they do in the States? Same question, but selling drugs now?

Guns probably play a role in a certain percentage of the preventable murders in the states, but I'd be willing to bet that many of the murders in the States would happen regardless of access to firearms. Just because that is what gangsters do here.

Drug LAWS are actually pretty similar regarding Japan Vs. The United States. What's different I think is the culture. Drug Use is seen as degeneracy, and being a known drug user brings a good deal of societal shame not only on the user, but on the family of the user as well. You're correct, drug use is EXTREMELY frowned upon in Japan society. Not really as a result of laws, but more the culture of honor and personal responsibility.

a reply to: [post=19409476]Indigo5[/postwww.criminallawyerdenver.com...
AGAIN,wrong.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Answer

You make a very good point. It's true that gun related deaths have been on a steady decline. I know it's easy to correlate to the increase in gun ownership to the decrease in violent crime, but correlation does not equal causation.

Read carefully and you'll see that I explicitly avoided making that correlation because, as you said, it's not provable. I said that crime does not go up when gun laws are relaxed. I never said that gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violent crime because there are no facts to support that claim.

It could be that violent crimes are decreasing as a result of the increased "police state" style of policing that has been going on since the early 70s and the advent of the "drug war". Of course, it could also be because more people are armed. It's hard to say.

It is due to a combination of factors. Again, I never said gun ownership has led to a decrease in crime... simply that more guns have not led to rising violent crime rates.

I think it's a discussion worth having. If nothing comes of it, I would accept that, but at least we would have talked about it.

The discussion has been had... NUMEROUS times. The problem is, the anti side wants to do away with the majority of privately-owned firearms, increase the prices across the board, and make it extremely difficult for any one to purchase a firearm. Their idea of "compromise" means that we give up our rights and they get to set up their imaginary "gun-free" utopia that the rational minded among us know will never exist. The anti-gun groups have never based their arguments on fact and that is why they continue to lose. The anti-gun folks' idea of "reasonable restrictions" are not even close to reasonable.

The simple fact that the group of folks who are A) ignorant about every aspect of a certain pastime and B) vehemently against the pastime can dictate what is a "reasonable" restriction is an asinine notion and an obvious attempt at control. They're trying to force their "guns are bad" beliefs on others and it's no different than a religious group trying to change laws based on their "holy scripture."

But what happens to those of us in the middle, who love guns, but kinda understand where the anti-gun people are coming from? I don't want to take anyone's guns away. If it were up to me, I'd have every liberal gun-grabber attempt a week long firearms training and sport shooting camp just to show them how damn fun the hobby is, but I can't. But some of their concerns I think ARE valid, and worth discussing.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But what happens to those of us in the middle, who love guns, but kinda understand where the anti-gun people are coming from?

Stay out of the way and keep your head down.

Duck.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But what happens to those of us in the middle, who love guns, but kinda understand where the anti-gun people are coming from?

Stay out of the way and keep your head down.

Duck.

Heh, very true. The far right calls me a liberal gun-grabber, and the far left calls me a gun-nut.

I can't win with either camp. Guess I'll go sit in the corner.