Walker Has No College Degree...

[JohnnySavage]

I'm more interested in why semi-automatic rifles are allowed to stick around in the first place. No hunter needs those. No home-defender needs those. They have only two conceivable uses to civilians: committing crimes, and getting your dick hard.

40 years ago I hunted with a semi-automatic rifle. ALL rifles are either semi-automatic or bolt-action. Yours is an ignorant statement.

 

[KingOrfeo]

40 years ago I hunted with a semi-automatic rifle. ALL rifles are either semi-automatic or bolt-action. Yours is an ignorant statement.

Wouldn't bolt-action have done the job as well? If your first shot misses, you've lost the prey anyway, doesn't matter how fast you can get off a second.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Wouldn't bolt-action have done the job as well? If your first shot misses, you've lost the prey anyway, doesn't matter how fast you can get off a second.

JFK was killed with a bolt-action rifle.

 

[KingOrfeo]

JFK was killed with a bolt-action rifle.

And Oswald got off more than one shot, didn't he?! Bolt-action is all you need!

 

[JohnnySavage]

And Oswald got off more than one shot, didn't he?! Bolt-action is all you need!

Exactly. So why the angst over semi-automatic rifles?

 

[Disgustipated]

Exactly. So why the angst over semi-automatic rifles?

Because of the "-automatic" part.

 

[miles]

Here's another example of Obama's attack on your freedom:

Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle
BY PAUL BEDARD | FEBRUARY 26, 2015 | 11:41 AM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

There is going to be a tidal wave of protest over this. Once again The Fraud goes through the back door to advance his personal agenda.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^ What you mean Herr Miles is once again the President eliminates exemptions so the law is simply like you simpletons like.

Wouldn't bolt-action have done the job as well? If your first shot misses, you've lost the prey anyway, doesn't matter how fast you can get off a second.

That's a bit like saying a Model -T will get you to your destination on time just as well as a real car.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

I'm more interested in why semi-automatic rifles are allowed to stick around in the first place. No hunter needs those. No home-defender needs those. They have only two conceivable uses to civilians: committing crimes, and getting your dick hard.

Are there any topics that you are not astonishingly ignorant of?

Offense requires a little planning, but no equipment. A club will do. A prison made single-shot zip-gun will do. A well placed shot with a .22 rim-fire pistol will do.

Defense means being prepared for a wide range of contingencies and adjusting under pressure to a situation you had no inkling was about to occur.

1) You have no idea how many attackers you will be facing.

2) PROFESSIONAL shooters with a lot of free ammo to practice with miss about 70% of the time in life threatening situations. This means to get three rounds in the center of mass you will need to expend 10 rounds. The quicker you get 10 shots down range the better chance your assailant is down before he (who had a head start) kills you.

The entire reason the 9mm is popular is because the smaller cartridges mean that a double stack magazine will fit in your hand, which means almost twice the number of bullets.

The FBI did a study and recommends them because of all of the above, over a .45 which has probably twice the energy per shot that a 9mm does.

Rifles are far easier to aim and fire accurately under pressure than a handgun. They are much more accurate than a shotgun. Assuming one gives consideration (as one should) to what is beyond the intended target, a rifle is far less likely to cause unintended collateral damage from inaccuracy.

You also know nothing about the muzzle velocity and the speed of sound. The second shot can be in a deer before the sound of the first shot reaches him.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The "Democrat" Party has accepted life under the auspices of a dictator. They have decided to surrender their aspect of the separation of powers and work on behalf of a lawless totalitarian bent on exercising unilateral imperial authority.

Just because a certain obscure kind of ammo has been taken off the market by EO does not mean elections are about to be canceled, nor that you are about to be shipped to a FEMA death camp.

 

[cowslinger64]

Are there any topics that you are not astonishingly ignorant of?

.

Like the Constitution you skooled him on?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Are there any topics that you are not astonishingly ignorant of?

Offense requires a little planning, but no equipment. A club will do. A prison made single-shot zip-gun will do. A well placed shot with a .22 rim-fire pistol will do.

Defense means being prepared for a wide range of contingencies and adjusting under pressure to a situation you had no inkling was about to occur.

1) You have no idea how many attackers you will be facing.

2) PROFESSIONAL shooters with a lot of free ammo to practice with miss about 70% of the time in life threatening situations. This means to get three rounds in the center of mass you will need to expend 10 rounds. The quicker you get 10 shots down range the better chance your assailant is down before he (who had a head start) kills you.

The entire reason the 9mm is popular is because the smaller cartridges mean that a double stack magazine will fit in your hand, which means almost twice the number of bullets.

The FBI did a study and recommends them because of all of the above, over a .45 which has probably twice the energy per shot that a 9mm does.

Rifles are far easier to aim and fire accurately under pressure than a handgun. They are much more accurate than a shotgun. Assuming one gives consideration (as one should) to what is beyond the intended target, a rifle is far less likely to cause unintended collateral damage from inaccuracy.

You also know nothing about the muzzle velocity and the speed of sound. The second shot can be in a deer before the sound of the first shot reaches him.

Standard paranoid bullshit. I mean, yes, someone can kill you with a club. . .but it's easier if they can kill you from half a block away and no amount of guns are gonna protect you from someone on the offense you wants you dead unless your strategy is to nuke a location from orbit before stepping foot in.

If safety is your goal the more weapons you can eliminate the better off you are. Period.

It is clear to me that you do not believe in our constitutional separation of powers. You laugh as Obama negates elections and spits on the American majority. This is why I do not call the Democrat Party the "democratic" party, they demonstrate their opposition to and hatred of the democratic process daily.

Obama hasnt' negated any elections or spat on the American Majority. As for the Constitutional Separation of Powers, like so much of our Constitution people only believe in it when they are losing an argument. Otherwise most people would gladly ignore it so stop pretending to be all high and goddamn mighty.

 

[CandiCame]

I'm more interested in why semi-automatic rifles are allowed to stick around in the first place. No hunter needs those. No home-defender needs those. They have only two conceivable uses to civilians: committing crimes, and getting your dick hard.

I feel like you don't know what semi-automatic means. It's just a marketing term. It's not a machine gun. /Some/ models will fire and cock at the same time, but they don't have to. It's not a regulated or standard term, it's exclusively a marketing gimmic.

Having said that, when you're hunting, it's often useful if you can't fucking shoot, to have a weapon that fires and cocks at the same time. Because if your wound something rather than killing it, it's more humane to kill it faster than to have to cock and use that time to lose your target so that you have to start tracking it again. Meanwhile it's slowly bleeding to death and suffering trauma from a massive gunshot wound. That couple of seconds is the difference between a clean kill and torturing an animal to death like a goddamn sadist. That's fucking cruel and you're cruel for saying it. The /reason/ that I, and tons of other people, hunt, is that it's more humane than factory farming. To take that and try to make it less humane, thus defeating the purpose of hunting, is fucking crazy. If I wanted to torture something to death I'd just go to McDonalds and get the chicken nuggets that spent their entire life in a fucking cage.

 

[CandiCame]

Wouldn't bolt-action have done the job as well? If your first shot misses, you've lost the prey anyway, doesn't matter how fast you can get off a second.

Because generally the first shot doesn't /miss/, it /wounds/. Then you have to track an injured animal who is suffering unnecessarily. This question pisses me off. I feel like I shouldn't have to tell you not to torture things.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because generally the first shot doesn't /miss/, it /wounds/. Then you have to track an injured animal who is suffering unnecessarily.

Bolt-action would do to finish it off, wouldn't it?

This question pisses me off. I feel like I shouldn't have to tell you not to torture things.

Hey, it's all hypotheticals, I've never gone hunting in my life.

 

[CandiCame]

Standard paranoid bullshit. I mean, yes, someone can kill you with a club. . .but it's easier if they can kill you from half a block away and no amount of guns are gonna protect you from someone on the offense you wants you dead unless your strategy is to nuke a location from orbit before stepping foot in.

If safety is your goal the more weapons you can eliminate the better off you are. Period.



Obama hasnt' negated any elections or spat on the American Majority. As for the Constitutional Separation of Powers, like so much of our Constitution people only believe in it when they are losing an argument. Otherwise most people would gladly ignore it so stop pretending to be all high and goddamn mighty.

I feel like this assumes that you're fighting humans. Not wildcats. Not bears.
And that's a pretty awesome world to live in but here in the really real world if a wildcat jumps me and it's just me teeth and claws beat squishy human flesh and screams of terror. And that's not something that happens infrequently. They've been eating my uncle's goats while their normal prey is down for the winter. They're in a barn behind an electric fence right across the creek from us. I have an infant behind flimsy wooden walls that aren't electrified in any way.

 

[CandiCame]

Bolt-action would do to finish it off, wouldn't it?



Hey, it's all hypotheticals, I've never gone hunting in my life.

If you want to have to track and torture it. With certain semi-automatics the second bullet would be in before it hears the first one. If you've never been hunting, why are you pretending to know what you're talking about? What you're suggesting is literally torturing animals, nothing more, nothing less.

Unless you want to issue something saying that only CIA-level marksmen can shoot and /force/ the rest of us to eat factory farmed meat. Which is bullshit because those animals are tortured. I want ethical meat. I want to boycott by showing that I can get the same product through ethical means, not by avoiding the product completely. When you eat ethical meat, you show that ethical meat is possible. When you go vegan, you become healthier, but you don't protest the market because they've lost a consumer to nothing, not to the competition.

You're not just wrong, you're wrong AND cruel. And I would like you to stop because it's something that I personally have a fierce ethical attachment to, and you're speaking in hypotheticals. Use a different analogy or whatever it is that you're doing. Let this one go.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I feel like this assumes that you're fighting humans. Not wildcats. Not bears.
And that's a pretty awesome world to live in but here in the really real world if a wildcat jumps me and it's just me teeth and claws beat squishy human flesh and screams of terror. And that's not something that happens infrequently. They've been eating my uncle's goats while their normal prey is down for the winter. They're in a barn behind an electric fence right across the creek from us. I have an infant behind flimsy wooden walls that aren't electrified in any way.

True enough. But Queery wasn't talking about a pack of wolves descending upon you. I would love to see what your definition of not infrequently is though since I've pullled up the numbers of how many people deer and bees (the number 1 killers of humans in the States do) and . . .your scenarios can't happen frequently when the Number 1s don't happen frequently.

 

[CandiCame]

True enough. But Queery wasn't talking about a pack of wolves descending upon you. I would love to see what your definition of not infrequently is though since I've pullled up the numbers of how many people deer and bees (the number 1 killers of humans in the States do) and . . .your scenarios can't happen frequently when the Number 1s don't happen frequently.

Well, to be fair, I made that seem more human-centric than I meant to. They steal livestock in the exact same manner and I was including those because of my whole animal thing that I do where I don't consider humans weirdly above the biosphere like some folk seem to do. I did mention livestock specifically being attacked, but upon further reading I can see how you would differentiate a fear that they would eat my critters and the fear that they would eat my humans as two different fears when I meant them as one. That's my bad.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Fair enough, and when your critters are your money I can see how that would be a large concern. Though depending on the rarity of the animal and the danger to a person I'm a "build a bigger fence and invest in a scary noise maker" person myself. Seriously, fuck you if you shoot a wolf in MOST of the country.

 

[CandiCame]

Fair enough, and when your critters are your money I can see how that would be a large concern. Though depending on the rarity of the animal and the danger to a person I'm a "build a bigger fence and invest in a scary noise maker" person myself. Seriously, fuck you if you shoot a wolf in MOST of the country.

Generally you just shoot enough to scare them off. Some of the predators that we have around here you can't actually shoot at because of their rarity. It's like coming upon a shiny Mezprit in the wild and killing it. You're just left standing there going "shit shit shit shit fuck". You don't need a semi-automatic to do that. But it is easier to have a gun.

Edit: And we seriously don't know how they're getting around that fence. It's a perfectly good fence. He had it replaced like a year ago. Their power was off for like a week and I think that they figured out that they could go through the fence during that time, but now that it's on again the attacks haven't stopped. He's caught them doing it but what the hell else are you supposed to do? He's got the fence and the dogs. Wild predators won't usually go through that much trouble, but with the snow they've got slim pickings in the wild.

 

[Que]

Standard paranoid bullshit. I mean, yes, someone can kill you with a club. . .but it's easier if they can kill you from half a block away and no amount of guns are gonna protect you from someone on the offense you wants you dead unless your strategy is to nuke a location from orbit before stepping foot in.

If safety is your goal the more weapons you can eliminate <from other people while retaining your own> the better off you are. Period.

FYP

Home invasion robberies are an actual thing. They happen less where criminals assume the citizenry are armed. They are unheard of in my neighborhood. The only loaded gun in the house is the little Walther. Maybe I get to it if someone knocks down the door, probably not.

We don't even lock the door. No one would be stupid enough to chance it.