Crime, and the absence of military grade machine guns

[MiniatureNinja]

I think we pretty much agree on everything here. We are closing the doors in september if the right wing parties get elected. Flood gates have been open for too long and our tolerance is definitely worn down by now. Mena refugees just dont mix with open western societies.

back in the 80s we had an idea - "if you put 1000 Russians in your city, they will have to assimilate to become part of the city. if you put 1,000,000 then your city becomes Russian"

Here in America we are a melting pot of culture, this is what baffles me about the whole "cultural appropriation" BS - it's respect and blending of cultures. my family has a tradition every Christmas we research and make food from a different country, new one every year. It's awesome

 

[crazypj]

Former Marine here. 3/1 K '01-05 and contractor after in Iraq 06 & 07

what is all this talk about "military grade" weapons?

military grade is what the government was willing to spend on millions of rifles - AKA complete SHIT from the lowest bidder that could meet supply demands. I was 0331 (machine gunner) and I carried 3 spare barrels on any venture OTW.

the rifles I own now are of far better quality, and I while they may not be black and scary looking, they will fuck you up more than the ones I used while I was making terrorist wannabes do the room temperature challenge

Isn't 'contractor' a pseudonym for mercenary? Anyway, I know it isn't supposed to be funny but this bit made me laugh " they may not be black and scary looking, they will fuck you up more than the ones I used while I was making terrorist wannabes do the room temperature challenge"

 

[J-Rod10]

Isn't 'contractor' a pseudonym for mercenary? Anyway, I know it isn't supposed to be funny but this bit made me laugh " they may not be black and scary looking, they will fuck you up more than the ones I used while I was making terrorist wannabes do the room temperature challenge"

Not really. Have a family member over there all the time. He never leaves base. Works on drone engines. Makes absolute bank.

 

[Scooter trash]

The Millennials have a completely different view on gun ownership. Eventually they will be banned, not helped by the media tossing it in your face every day, using Chicago as a political tool, against Democrats. I want to keep my guns, I also have a carry permit, my Mr. Rogers neighborhood, is more like Captain Spaulding's.

 

[J-Rod10]

The Millennials have a completely different view on gun ownership. Eventually they will be banned, not helped by the media tossing it in your face every day, using Chicago as a political tool, against Democrats. I want to keep my guns, I also have a carry permit, my Mr. Rogers neighborhood, is more like Captain Spaulding's.

Far from all of us think like that. I don't think they'll be banned. Whole lot of us pesky Millennials grew up with firearms as a part of like, father/daughter/son/grandfather bonding. We're just not the ones certain channels on TV tend to put on the air.

 

[MiniatureNinja]

Isn't 'contractor' a pseudonym for mercenary? Anyway, I know it isn't supposed to be funny but this bit made me laugh " they may not be black and scary looking, they will fuck you up more than the ones I used while I was making terrorist wannabes do the room temperature challenge"

nope.

mercenaries are paid soldiers essentially.

as a contractor I was responsible for site security for dignitaries, intelligence sites, supply depos - my primary job was route planning and transportation - we often came under fire during planning stages, and were responsible for our own defense, I was armed, we fought.. we did a lot of things. But at the end of the day I was just a security guard really - in a combat zone


as for firearms eventually being banned. really?

prohibition did not work, we eventually legalized and taxed it
same with pot - and other drugs will follow.

you can make your own guns - anyone who wants a copy of the TM31-210 (Improvised Munitions Handbook) from the U.S. military just download it and it will explain how to make every type of weapon from every day items. It's not illegal (provided the weapons you make meet required laws for length and ammo type) and I encourage people who don't know shit about guns to find someone who does and hang out with them.

 

[crazypj]

you can make your own guns - anyone who wants a copy of the TM31-210 (Improvised Munitions Handbook) from the U.S. military just download it and it will explain how to make every type of weapon from every day items. It's not illegal (provided the weapons you make meet required laws for length and ammo type) and I encourage people who don't know shit about guns to find someone who does and hang out with them.

I have a friend who was a sergeant in the Ranger Battalion, keeps telling me I should learn more. I think AR15 is so scary to people because when you handle it (unloaded without mag) it feels like a toy. I kinda wondered what all the fuss was about until I got to hold onto one. It is a little terrifying knowing just what it could do in the wrong hands

 

[MiniatureNinja]

I have a friend who was a sergeant in the Ranger Battalion, keeps telling me I should learn more. I think AR15 is so scary to people because when you handle it (unloaded without mag) it feels like a toy. I kinda wondered what all the fuss was about until I got to hold onto one. It is a little terrifying knowing just what it could do in the wrong hands

This:

and THIS:

have identical capabilities - they fire the same round, at the same velocity using similar magazines.

yet one is more "scary" because people just dont know.
you want scary guns? how about the one Jose "Emilio" Huerta is hiding in his waste band... you know the Beretta 92 that has the serial numbers shaved off and is loaded with standard capacity magazines that law abiding citizens aren't allowed to own.

 

[J-Rod10]

Far as lethality in numbers goes, close range, a handgun is going to do more damage than an AR, with someone somewhat competent with a handgun.

 

[J-Rod10]

Then, there's this bit of awesomesauce.

https://youtu.be/IjS5DLFACF8

 

[MiniatureNinja]

Far as lethality in numbers goes, close range, a handgun is going to do more damage than an AR, with someone somewhat competent with a handgun.

the only thing a pistol is good for is fighting your way to a rifle or shotgun.

9mm has a muzzle velocity around 1100fps, and I think 400lbs energy, where as the much smaller 5.56mm has a muzzle velocity of 3,150fps and about 6x as much energy - the speed is important as it's hydro-static shock effect on human tissue is what does the most damage, setting off a shockwave of pressure inside tissue - literally exploding organs and bones as it passes by them at over TWO THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR

mmm, I love me some 5.56

 

[crazypj]

I worked with a guy who was in Nam'. He said at close range you couldn't beat a 45. Smaller caliber high velocity could go straight through allowing attacker to continue 'just long enough' (he didn't elaborate) said a 45 just made them stop - 'dead'
Years ago (2002?) I had a 'student' who was a 'tunnel rat' in Nam' he was completely messed up, usually turned up half drunk. At the end of 3 week course he told me about some of the stuff 'they' did. Said a lot of the negative news reports at the time were totally true (wiping out villages, etc ) but the 'up close and personal' in tunnels was classified. It was more than I wanted to know

 

[J-Rod10]

I worked with a guy who was in Nam'. He said at close range you couldn't beat a 45. Smaller caliber high velocity could go straight through allowing attacker to continue 'just long enough' (he didn't elaborate) said a 45 just made them stop - 'dead'
Years ago (2002?) I had a 'student' who was a 'tunnel rat' in Nam' he was completely messed up, usually turned up half drunk. At the end of 3 week course he told me about some of the stuff 'they' did. Said a lot of the negative news reports at the time were totally true (wiping out villages, etc ) but the 'up close and personal' in tunnels was classified. It was more than I wanted to know

My brother arrested a drug dealer a little while back with a couple mags full of these little treats. I think I'd rather take a 55gr through and through from a .556 than a 100+gr one of these out of a handgun.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

 

[TurdFurguson]

My brother arrested a drug dealer a little while back with a couple mags full of these little treats. I think I'd rather take a 55gr through and through from a .556 than a 100+gr one of these out of a handgun.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

They also dont really travel through walls because of how they explode so they make great home defense ammo

 

[teazer]

You fail to understand what the bill of rights even is. It does not grant us our rights... it recognizes them as being inherent and inalienable. They limit ONLY the government from suppressing our thoughts and freedom. If the rules must evolve, then so should our government. Because when the average citizen is outgunned by a police force that's designed to protect them, something is very wrong.

But I do understand the "rights" and they are not either inherent or inalienable. They were granted under the amendment to the original constitution. Those rights do not exist in the same way in any other country that I know of. Doen't make them right or wrong, but they are not basic human rights.

The issue about being able to defend yourself from government is interesting, but how does a government through police enforce laws if citizens are more heavily armed? The issue of escalation is one we as a society do need to address, I agree, but more weapons in more hands doen's sound like a very good solution.

You do remind us that the first and second amendments were designed to protect citizens from an overbearing government and the way those are now interpreted doesn't look much like a logical evolution of the original intent.

You also raise the issue of how to get guns out of the hands of criminals. No regulations will be 100% effective, but we could use some sensible discussions from both sides as to how to reduce gun violence and restrict access by the wrong people to guns. Total bans are never going to work but there has to be some common ground on how to reduce the availability of guns to people that should not have them.

 

[J-Rod10]

They also dont really travel through walls because of how they explode so they make great home defense ammo

Yep. Those RIP rounds have to be top of the list for self defense. The testing in ballistic gel, it's scary.

 

[crazypj]

You do remind us that the first and second amendments were designed to protect citizens from an overbearing government and the way those are now interpreted doesn't look much like a logical evolution of the original intent.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said government should be afraid of citizens rather than citizens afraid of government? The power that paramilitary Police have is frightening, doesn't matter if they were wrong and you could sue them if your dead.

 

[J-Rod10]

One might argue that being equally as armed as the police is what keeps us from being a police state.


It wasn't long ago, a bunch of armed ranchers took a stand against the federal government. The head of that bunch, was found not guilty in a court of law of whatever it was they tried to pin on him, and the courts found the federal government in the wrong.

Personally, I think that whole situation is over before it began if they had no guns.

 

[MiniatureNinja]

But I do understand the "rights" and they are not either inherent or inalienable. They were granted under the amendment to the original constitution. Those rights do not exist in the same way in any other country that I know of. Doen't make them right or wrong, but they are not basic human rights.

The issue about being able to defend yourself from government is interesting, but how does a government through police enforce laws if citizens are more heavily armed? The issue of escalation is one we as a society do need to address, I agree, but more weapons in more hands doen's sound like a very good solution.

You do remind us that the first and second amendments were designed to protect citizens from an overbearing government and the way those are now interpreted doesn't look much like a logical evolution of the original intent.

You also raise the issue of how to get guns out of the hands of criminals. No regulations will be 100% effective, but we could use some sensible discussions from both sides as to how to reduce gun violence and restrict access by the wrong people to guns. Total bans are never going to work but there has to be some common ground on how to reduce the availability of guns to people that should not have them.

have you read the constitution? they are defined as unalienable

from a source you might understand: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history

"The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including"...


the right to defend ourselves is NOT a right granted to us by our government. it's just not.
rights granted are not rights, they are privileges.