|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
 |
August 23, 2012, 08:10:12 PM |
|
That's cute. At least I've never been so immature as to present my opinion of you outside the context of some thread where you're pontificating on the mechanisms of your fantasy world. Instead, I say it like it is to your face, or where you'll hear me loud and clear, like right here, and directly addressing your unending garbage, all based on crackpot websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 23, 2012, 08:19:36 PM |
|
That's cute. At least I've never been so immature as to present my opinion of you outside the context of some thread where you're pontificating on the mechanisms of your fantasy world. Instead, I say it like it is to your face, or where you'll hear me loud and clear, like right here, and directly addressing your unending garbage, all based on crackpot websites. Yes, crackpot websites like Mises.org, and Wikipedia, and crackpot authors like Frederic Bastiat, and Murray Rothbard.  Feel free to take all your further insults of me to the thread I linked above, rather than cluttering up other threads with your bullshit. |
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
August 23, 2012, 08:24:02 PM |
|
Yes the example is ridiculous.
Thank you, that's all we have to say. I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen. How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world. Mykul is using 'reducum ad absurdum' to highlight the rediculouslessness of the current system. Of course anyone willing to build and carry around a nuke is a threat to everyone around him, same for a bomb vest. The real point here is not that you gunbanners actually believe that you can remove weapons from society, because you don't advocate removing weapons from governments or it's agents. There is the big, pink elephant in the room. That governments have nuclear missiles pointed at each other all of the time, and are a constant threat to each other, and all of us happen to be in the way. So we are under threat every minute of our lives. So the real point here is not that someone should or should not be prevented from possessing a nuke; because the practical reality is that it's not governments that actually prevent this, it's the high cost of such a weapon and it's limited usefulness to anyone with his head on straight. But the same argument applies to any military grade weapon that a person could afford and have a practical use for, and therefore any less military/offense in design and more defensive in design as well, such as a home-defense shotgun or a handgun; the opinions of what others believe are appropriate notwithstanding. I've shot many a full-auto machine gun, and they a a great time. A minigun costs about $40 per second to actually fire, so it's not exactly a poor man's hobby; but who are you to say what I can't do for fun? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 23, 2012, 08:27:40 PM |
|
So as to prevent a hijack by FistAsshole, I'll copy my previous post here: Yes the example is ridiculous.
Thank you, that's all we have to say. I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen. How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world. I'm being perfectly consistent. I'll address your idiocy one statement at a time. Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.
Certainly it is, and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Just understand that if you go onto someone else's property with a device designed to destroy it if any harm comes to you, you will not be allowed to stay. If you pull a weapon and point it at someone, don't be surprised if you get shot. And that is exactly what you are doing, arming a nuke, pointing a gun at everyone nearby, even people who don't know you're there. And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.
Your stated reason for carrying the nuke is to receive protection. You're threatening harm to everyone even remotely near you as a defense against mugging. If that isn't the "systematic use of terror", I don't know what is. You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.
Again, perfectly consistent. Firing a rifle through a public park isn't the same as waving a gun around. You specifically stated that the shooter had set up targets, and as I said, if he wanted to avoid confusion, he should inform the people in the park that he's about to do some target practice. If you want to avoid being confused with a suicide bomber, you should inform everyone that the explosive strapped to you is wired to your vitals, and nothing will happen as long as you're safe. Of course, recall what I said about lunch. As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.
Oh, there's no harm to strapping a bomb to you. As I said, you're welcome to carry a nuclear device. An armed bomb is another matter. That's the equivalent of pointing a gun at every individual within range of the explosion. |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 23, 2012, 08:46:30 PM |
|
Yes the example is ridiculous.
Thank you, that's all we have to say. I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen. How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world. Mykul is using 'reducum ad absurdum' to highlight the rediculouslessness of the current system. Of course anyone willing to build and carry around a nuke is a threat to everyone around him, same for a bomb vest. The real point here is not that you gunbanners actually believe that you can remove weapons from society, because you don't advocate removing weapons from governments or it's agents. There is the big, pink elephant in the room. That governments have nuclear missiles pointed at each other all of the time, and are a constant threat to each other, and all of us happen to be in the way. So we are under threat every minute of our lives. So the real point here is not that someone should or should not be prevented from possessing a nuke; because the practical reality is that it's not governments that actually prevent this, it's the high cost of such a weapon and it's limited usefulness to anyone with his head on straight. But the same argument applies to any military grade weapon that a person could afford and have a practical use for, and therefore any less military/offense in design and more defensive in design as well, such as a home-defense shotgun or a handgun; the opinions of what others believe are appropriate notwithstanding. I've shot many a full-auto machine gun, and they a a great time. A minigun costs about $40 per second to actually fire, so it's not exactly a poor man's hobby; but who are you to say what I can't do for fun? You have failed to address the fact that governments point nukes at each other precisely because governments, taken as entities, exist in an AnCap society. In an AnCap society, there are households, with parents, guardians, etc. who lay down rules for the rest of the residents. Likewise, in the AnCap society of this world where the governments are the households, there are rules. In general, in a household, or a within a state, the rules are that no member should point a weapon at another. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
August 23, 2012, 11:14:51 PM |
|
Yes the example is ridiculous.
Thank you, that's all we have to say. I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen. How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world. Mykul is using 'reducum ad absurdum' to highlight the rediculouslessness of the current system. Of course anyone willing to build and carry around a nuke is a threat to everyone around him, same for a bomb vest. The real point here is not that you gunbanners actually believe that you can remove weapons from society, because you don't advocate removing weapons from governments or it's agents. There is the big, pink elephant in the room. That governments have nuclear missiles pointed at each other all of the time, and are a constant threat to each other, and all of us happen to be in the way. So we are under threat every minute of our lives. So the real point here is not that someone should or should not be prevented from possessing a nuke; because the practical reality is that it's not governments that actually prevent this, it's the high cost of such a weapon and it's limited usefulness to anyone with his head on straight. But the same argument applies to any military grade weapon that a person could afford and have a practical use for, and therefore any less military/offense in design and more defensive in design as well, such as a home-defense shotgun or a handgun; the opinions of what others believe are appropriate notwithstanding. I've shot many a full-auto machine gun, and they a a great time. A minigun costs about $40 per second to actually fire, so it's not exactly a poor man's hobby; but who are you to say what I can't do for fun? You have failed to address the fact that governments point nukes at each other precisely because governments, taken as entities, exist in an AnCap society. In an AnCap society, there are households, with parents, guardians, etc. who lay down rules for the rest of the residents. Likewise, in the AnCap society of this world where the governments are the households, there are rules. In general, in a household, or a within a state, the rules are that no member should point a weapon at another. What needs to be addressed about that? Nation states function in an environment of functional anarchy, kept in check by their own sanity and the consequences of aggression. I'm not an anarchist, though, so I shouldn't have tp defend that position. I was merely pointing out the double standard among gun control advocates, for I have met exactly zero that advocate disarming the police. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
August 24, 2012, 12:06:54 PM |
|
The right to bear arms is what protects all other rights.
Criminals don't obey laws.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. (Government agents too.. but I repeat myself.)
M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me! |
|
|
AntiCap
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
August 26, 2012, 11:20:14 PM |
|
I'm being perfectly consistent. I'll address your idiocy one statement at a time. Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.
Certainly it is, and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Just understand that if you go onto someone else's property with a device designed to destroy it if any harm comes to you, you will not be allowed to stay. If you pull a weapon and point it at someone, don't be surprised if you get shot. And that is exactly what you are doing, arming a nuke, pointing a gun at everyone nearby, even people who don't know you're there. And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.
Your stated reason for carrying the nuke is to receive protection. You're threatening harm to everyone even remotely near you as a defense against mugging. If that isn't the "systematic use of terror", I don't know what is. You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.
Again, perfectly consistent. Firing a rifle through a public park isn't the same as waving a gun around. You specifically stated that the shooter had set up targets, and as I said, if he wanted to avoid confusion, he should inform the people in the park that he's about to do some target practice. If you want to avoid being confused with a suicide bomber, you should inform everyone that the explosive strapped to you is wired to your vitals, and nothing will happen as long as you're safe. Of course, recall what I said about lunch. As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.
Oh, there's no harm to strapping a bomb to you. As I said, you're welcome to carry a nuclear device. An armed bomb is another matter. That's the equivalent of pointing a gun at every individual within range of the explosion. The crazy is strong with this one, I can tell. 1) Yes, I can do whatever I want with it but no I can't? Make up your mind. I have certainly not pointed a gun at anybody, not even figurativly. I have a device that prevents you from winning a fight with me. 2) I'm incentivizing. You're the one calling it terror. I'm just carrying a big gun. There could be some collateral damage, I agree, but the mugger could miss me while shooting at me and hit the nursing home behind me, so that damage could happen anyway. 3) The park shooting wasn't my example actually, but I quite enjoy it. How can you fire a rifle without handling it in the open first (or waving it around if you will)?. So I can wave a gun around, and if someone kills me for it they will have to pay my family restitution? Let's just pretend you didn't want to ban me from my gun-waving earlier. And the park shooting guy, he's preparing to shoot through the park right now, and I see this as a threat to my family and friends still in there somewhere, and he's adamant about shooting right now, assuring me that he will pay restitution if he hits anyone in my family. Can I use my own gun to shoot him before he hits anybody, or do I have to wait until somebody dies? 4) So a gun is fine, but a loaded gun isn't? Again, I'm not harming anybody. And if they feel that I'm somehow threatening them I'm cool with them pointing a gun at me. No biggie. They might percieve me as a threat, but that's not my problem. And anybody in that room with a gun could also pe percieved as a threat. I also happen to have a few asshole cousins. They also love nuclear bombs and they hate your way of life. They will do anything to hurt you. Sorry about that. But I'm sure the nuke they're buying has a legit purpose. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 27, 2012, 01:01:39 AM
Last edit: August 27, 2012, 01:17:38 AM by myrkul |
|
The crazy is strong with this one, I can tell.
Yes, but enough about yourself, we're talking about weapons here. I've taken the liberty of correcting your spelling errors. 1) Yes, I can do whatever I want with it but no I can't? Make up your mind. I have certainly not pointed a gun at anybody, not even figuratively. I have a device that prevents you from winning a fight with me.
Well, if I have a gun drawn and aimed at your head, you certainly can't win any fight with me, either. The problem lies not in the fact that you have a device which prevents me from winning any fight with you, but in the fact that the device also threatens everyone within range. A bomb is not a shield. 2) I'm incentivizing. You're the one calling it terror. I'm just carrying a big gun. There could be some collateral damage, I agree, but the mugger could miss me while shooting at me and hit the nursing home behind me, so that damage could happen anyway.
Assuming that the mugger was using a nuclear hand grenade, yes. But he's not. He's using a firearm. Use proportional force, ie another firearm. You're not just carrying a big gun. You're pointing that gun at everyone in range, and saying, "Better not fuck with me, or I'll blow you all away!" 3) The park shooting wasn't my example actually, but I quite enjoy it. How can you fire a rifle without handling it in the open first (or waving it around if you will)?. So I can wave a gun around, and if someone kills me for it they will have to pay my family restitution? Let's just pretend you didn't want to ban me from my gun-waving earlier.
And the park shooting guy, he's preparing to shoot through the park right now, and I see this as a threat to my family and friends still in there somewhere, and he's adamant about shooting right now, assuring me that he will pay restitution if he hits anyone in my family. Can I use my own gun to shoot him before he hits anybody, or do I have to wait until somebody dies?
It's public property. That's where the problem lies. It's his land too. Get your friends out of his shooting range, if you feel they're being threatened. 4) So a gun is fine, but a loaded gun isn't? Again, I'm not harming anybody. And if they feel that I'm somehow threatening them I'm cool with them pointing a gun at me. No biggie. They might perceive me as a threat, but that's not my problem. And anybody in that room with a gun could also be perceived as a threat.
Again, a loaded gun is fine, as long as it's not being pointed randomly at people. A nuclear device is fine, as long as it's not armed. Armed is not loaded. Armed is hammer cocked and pointed. I also happen to have a few asshole cousins. They also love nuclear bombs and they hate your way of life. They will do anything to hurt you. Sorry about that. But I'm sure the nuke they're buying has a legit purpose. A tool is a tool. A nuclear bomb is a tool to make a very large explosion. That explosion can be used for good (say, asteroid mining) or evil (blowing up a city). Guess which category your retributive vest falls under. |
|
|
|
Rarity
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
|
|
August 27, 2012, 01:37:28 AM |
|
I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting. (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)
What changed my mind was moving to London. The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns. There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly. I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work. We have too many examples where they have worked just fine. Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example. Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers. You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals. We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.
As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people. The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out. I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.
|
"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
August 27, 2012, 01:41:24 AM |
|
I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting. (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)
What changed my mind was moving to London. The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns. There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly. I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work. We have too many examples where they have worked just fine. Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example. Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers. You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals. We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.
As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people. The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out. I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.
What is the difference between a semi-auto AR15 and fully auto M-16? |
|
|
|
|
Rarity
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
|
|
August 27, 2012, 01:54:24 AM |
|
I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting. (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)
What changed my mind was moving to London. The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns. There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly. I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work. We have too many examples where they have worked just fine. Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example. Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers. You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals. We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.
As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people. The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out. I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.
What is the difference between a semi-auto AR15 and fully auto M-16? One can fire fully auto, making it even more dangerous. Though, I'm not comparing the danger between the two. I'm pointing out how gun control alters the availability between them. Both should be banned. That one already has been controlled is simply pointed out to preempt suggestions that such bans don't work. |
"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 27, 2012, 02:01:11 AM |
|
Both should be banned.
One small question: Why? |
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
August 27, 2012, 02:04:01 AM |
|
I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting. (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)
What changed my mind was moving to London. The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns. There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly. I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work. We have too many examples where they have worked just fine. Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example. Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers. You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals. We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.
As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people. The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out. I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.
What is the difference between a semi-auto AR15 and fully auto M-16? One can fire fully auto, making it even more dangerous. Though, I'm not comparing the danger between the two. I'm pointing out how gun control alters the availability between them. Both should be banned. That one already has been controlled is simply pointed out to preempt suggestions that such bans don't work. How many M-16s do you believe are in US civilian hands right now? |
|
|
|
|
Rarity
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
|
|
August 27, 2012, 02:14:55 AM |
|
How many M-16s do you believe are in US civilian hands right now? I don't have precise figures. Tell me, would it be false of me to suggest: 1. Much fewer than there are AR-15 and variants. 2. That it is much less often the weapon used in crimes or mass murder than the AR-15 and variants. (And yes, I am aware handguns dwarf both in ownership and criminal use. The point is simply to compare two very similar weapons to note the difference gun control makes between them.) |
"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
August 27, 2012, 02:25:49 AM |
|
How many M-16s do you believe are in US civilian hands right now? I don't have precise figures. Tell me, would it be false of me to suggest: 1. Much fewer than there are AR-15 and variants. 2. That it is much less often the weapon used in crimes or mass murder than the AR-15 and variants. (And yes, I am aware handguns dwarf both in ownership and criminal use. The point is simply to compare two very similar weapons to note the difference gun control makes between them.) I have no idea that's why I was asking. I do know that it is said to be pretty easy to turn an AR15 into an M16 and the instructions are freely available online, no idea how many people do this but that would make it difficult to get a good estimate on how effective the suppression of automatic rifle ownership is. |
|
|
|
|
Rarity
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
|
|
August 27, 2012, 02:42:16 AM |
|
How many M-16s do you believe are in US civilian hands right now? I don't have precise figures. Tell me, would it be false of me to suggest: 1. Much fewer than there are AR-15 and variants. 2. That it is much less often the weapon used in crimes or mass murder than the AR-15 and variants. (And yes, I am aware handguns dwarf both in ownership and criminal use. The point is simply to compare two very similar weapons to note the difference gun control makes between them.) I have no idea that's why I was asking. I do know that it is said to be pretty easy to turn an AR15 into an M16 and the instructions are freely available online, no idea how many people do this but that would make it difficult to get a good estimate on how effective the suppression of automatic rifle ownership is. As far as I am aware, easy conversion to real full-auto is a bit of a myth though I imagine it can be done if someone has the right tools. However, it generally isn't done because for criminal or mass murder purposes you aren't really gaining much and are in some ways losing out on reliability by altering a gun to be fully auto that was not really designed for it. As for ownership numbers, I have no idea. They are so rare I doubt anybody even tracks them. According to Googling on gun forums, people price out at fully auto AK as a bargain at $10k. You can get the legal semi version for much, much less. Gun control has priced the full auto versions out of the reach of the common criminal, and we could do the same with the semi-auto version if we wanted. |
"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 27, 2012, 02:48:17 AM |
|
Gun control has priced the full auto versions out of the reach of the common criminal, and we could do the same with the semi-auto version if we wanted.
Again, Rarity, this is a very simple question: Why? As a gun control advocate, you should be able to answer why you think guns should be controlled. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
