Guns, Guns Guns

Annachie wrote:So, what's with this tripple barrel shot gun I keep hearing about?

An interesting but basically useless oddity. It adds 50% more shots to the double barrel but a pump has 7 shots which is 2 1/3 more than it has. True being single shot it lacks much of the maintenance but at the cost of reloads.
When I played Zombie-U, you got the double barrel and used it till you got the pump. I usually used it till I got back to base, empting the ammo in it along the way. Then put it (empty) in the storage box in-case I later had a lot of ammo but lost the pump. (If I found a lot of SG ammo I might put 2 rounds in it as storage space)

The only other use I can think of is for 3 types of ammo, such as: 1 rock-salt (for a warning), 1 00-Buck for an area shot & 1 Slug for... (when it's needed)

MAD-4A wrote:Yea, that worked soooo well with Moa, Stalin and HITLER.

Dictatures tend to not respect democracy much no. What an amazing surprise.

MAD-4A wrote:"Nonsense."
Who do you vote for? Has anyone come up to you and told you "It's your turn to decide who gets to run for office"? Who gets to choose who gets to run? YOU don't!

If i want to be part of deciding who gets to run for political office, then i join a party, and say what i want there, as they usually decide who runs. Or i set up a campaign for a person and get enough people to vote for him/her to override party politics.

And every 4th year, i automatically get voting papers in the mail.

MAD-4A wrote:When you put all the power into the government, then those in charge of running the government have all the power.

Do tell then how the power is less in the hands of the government in USA than, for example here?

Answer however is, it isn´t.

MAD-4A wrote:The (until recently) freest Nation in the history of humanity.

Incorrect. That´s just makebelief propaganda that was never true from the start.
It´s just pure baffle them with bullshit rethoric.

MAD-4A wrote:Everyone else envies Americans for our freedom

It´s really quite insane to believe such an absurdly ridiculous claim. Seriously, don´t you even have a shred of intellectual honesty?

Ask everyone on the forum if they "envy americans for their freedom", do it.
I´m sure you might get someone who answers yes, but that will be the exception, not the norm.

MAD-4A wrote:Now we see your problem - of-course there is.

That idiocy merely shows off your ignorance about the rest of the world.
But of course it´s easier to believe the proper party line, obviously the standard US indoctrination cannot be wrong.

Sheesh.

MAD-4A wrote: you wish you had the freedom of Americans.

Hell NO! Why ever would i want LESS freedom?

Hmm, Tenshinai, Europe has problems with it's own southern border, changing the demographics of Europe, when the Muslims take control say good bye to freedom, and hello to Sharia Law. Note Christians and Jews are second class citizens while atheists are apostates and killed under it.

Poker

pokermind wrote:Hmm, Tenshinai, Europe has problems with it's own southern border, changing the demographics of Europe, when the Muslims take control say good bye to freedom, and hello to Sharia Law. Note Christians and Jews are second class citizens while atheists are apostates and killed under it.

Poker

You greatly overestimate the size of the problem due to how you underestimate just how large the European population is.

More than twice the population of USA...

Is it a problem? Yes. Will it be a problem the way you repeatedly babble about, no.

There are several reasons for that that you really ought to figure out for yourself.
At least two are extremely obvious.

What happens in Idaho when Feds attempt to confiscate a veteran who had a resent stroke's firearms:

http://100percentfedup.com/defiance-against-tyranny-feds-gun-confiscation-attempt-sparks-protest-in-idaho/

President Obama's new executive order using VA records to confiscate guns in violation of the 4th and 2nd Amendment met with armed resistance by locals and the local sheriff threatened to arrest for violation of the man's rights without due process of the law the feds involved.

Libs claim Obama will lot confiscate guns, the libs lie.

Poker

I would argue that it wouldn't violate the 4th. Also, nope. It's a 19 year old law not an executive order, and the veterans themselves say that this story is crap, though almost related to the truth.
Personally, anyone that is judged mentally unsound enough that they want to take their guns away, is ill enough to not be able to fight in a militia and thus is not covered by the 2nd.
But that is politics and I'd love to get politics away from this topic. (Well in specifics anyway)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Tenshinai wrote:Dictatures tend to not respect democracy much no.

Yes, & they find a country with a controlling central socialist government & unarmed subjects, very easy to take control of. All they have to do is become the one in charge of the government & poof...Dictatorship...DUH

Tenshinai wrote:If i want to be part of deciding who gets to run for political office, then i join a party, and say what i want there, as they usually decide who runs. Or i set up a campaign for a person and get enough people to vote for him/her to override party politics.

Yea right, just try it...they may give you a nod or two but (as with the German NAZI's & Russain/Chinese Commies) the people in charge of the "Party" are the ones who actually chose who gets to run & who, in the party, you get to vote for.

Tenshinai wrote:Do tell then how the power is less in the hands of the government in USA...

It's not anymore...socialists have ruined that for everyone, we're turning into a commie/socialist state like everyone else.

Tenshinai wrote:I´m sure you might get someone who answers yes, but that will be the exception, not the norm.

Because the Communists did such a good job with their brainwashing campaign - it just took too long for the SU to benefit from it.

Annachie wrote:anyone that is judged mentally unsound enough that they want to take their guns away, is ill enough to not be able to fight in a militia and thus is not covered by the 2nd.

And who judges what constitutes "mentally unsound"? The same liberal socialist obama put in-charge of taxes? Who then determined that any group who was conservative or "tea-party", in their views, don't qualify but anyone who is "libral-socialist" does? Or (as pointed out earlier) as the
National Socialist German Workers' Party decided that anyone who was not a good NAZI or who was (especially) a Jew, Slav, Gay or Gipsy doesn't qualify, and anyone who is a "good" NAZI does?
"Oh your a conservative? sorry that qualifies you as 'mentally unsound' you can't have a gun! GUARDS!!!
Oh, your a socialist? here you go, don't worry about the wait time on a handgun, you qualify to have it waived.

Annachie wrote:But that is politics and I'd love to get politics away from this topic.

That's what this topic is about, the 2nd amendment is a political "hot-topic" and key point of attack against the freedoms of America.

MAD-4A wrote:It's not anymore...socialists have ruined that for everyone, we're turning into a commie/socialist state like everyone else.

Never was. And creating a fictional scapegoat like you do above? If you want to mimic nazi Germany, that´s exactly the way to go.

They also blamed everything on "socialists", among a few other groups.

Why don´t you try blaming someone actually guilty of at least something sometime?

There are very few socialists in USA, and their presence in positions of power is nonexistant.


But of course, it´s much easier to throw blame around at various nebulous "evil enemies", than it is to actually do something useful or worthwhile.


And seriously, communists?

I recall a fight on a history forum, one of the rare members of the communist party USA, he dared his opponent to try and talk to a few fellows at work about being a member.

The idiot said -fine i´ll do it!- he thought USA actually had freedom of speech in politics.
Next day he was back and noted "I lost my job...".

That´s standard fare in USA, and you actually think communists have any real influence in USA?

MAD-4A wrote:Yes, & they find a country with a controlling central socialist government & unarmed subjects, very easy to take control of. All they have to do is become the one in charge of the government & poof...Dictatorship...DUH

Perhaps you should look up what the personal gunlaws were in nations before they became dictatures? Because you´re not even close to reality.

The less restrictions on private gun ownership, the easier for dictators to take over, because dictators become that by having either money, allowing them to pay people with guns that easily found, or they talk sweetly and make sure the idiots with guns are their first recruits.

They don´t care if individuals have guns, because would be dictators and their minions act in a large group, against individual opponents.

The nazis could never have taken control of Germany if the "no guns" laws of 1919 and 1920 had stayed in effect, instead of being replaced by the 1928 laws.

Liberal gun laws and a widespread gun culture did absolutely nothing to prevent Pakistan from becoming a dictature.

Russia is on the lighter side of private gun ownership, yet rejected the Soviet dictature.

While Iraq has lots of private guns and plenty of dictators, real and would be.

Libya wasn´t much better off with their easy availability of guns.

MAD-4A wrote:Yea right, just try it...they may give you a nod or two but (as with the German NAZI's & Russain/Chinese Commies) the people in charge of the "Party" are the ones who actually chose who gets to run & who, in the party, you get to vote for.

Not really no. While usually the big wigs are the ones whose candidates get voted on, it is not uncommon with local candidates suggested, sometimes winning the votes, nor is it rare for various "unsponsored" candidates to be thrown into the mix, and if they´re good enough, nothing stops them from winning a vote.

That´s nothing unheard of here, even for important positions, surprise candidates sometimes wins.
Which is exactly why party leadership sometimes spend far too much effort on picking candidates, as they want to avoid the appearance of party splits.

MAD-4A wrote:Because the Communists did such a good job with their brainwashing campaign - it just took too long for the SU to benefit from it.

Try to rejoin the real world some day, neh?

The "everony envies USA" is just so utterly inane and stupid that, seriously how can anyone believe something so fricking stupid?

I can only pity the fools who believes something so obviously fake.

MAD-4A wrote:Or (as pointed out earlier) as the
National Socialist German Workers' Party decided that anyone who was not a good NAZI or who was (especially) a Jew, Slav, Gay or Gipsy doesn't qualify, and anyone who is a "good" NAZI does?

And like i said to Pokermind, you really ought to read up on your history knowledge, because if you did, you wouldn´t be so offensive as to claim the nazis to be their victims.

As "socialists"/"communists" were one of the nazis primary designated opponents, and mostly ended up murdered.

I find it disgusting that you identify nazi victims as nazis.

In the 1930s Will Rodgers quipped, "America has the best government money can buy," now an academic study prove it graphically see vido:

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/study-congress-literally-doesnt-care-what-you-think

And you thought your vote and opinion mattered, well as PT Barnum quipped, "There is one [sucker] born every minute."

Poker

Tenshinai wrote:The less restrictions on private gun ownership, the easier for dictators to take over, because dictators become that by having either money, allowing them to pay people with guns that easily found, or they talk sweetly and make sure the idiots with guns are their first recruits.
They don´t care if individuals have guns, because would be dictators and their minions act in a large group, against individual opponents.
The nazis could never have taken control of Germany if the "no guns" laws of 1919 and 1920 had stayed in effect, instead of being replaced by the 1928 laws.

I beg to differ. First of all, regarding Nazi Germany you should remember that the Nazi's were actually voted in. Their attempted coup - a rather harebrained undertaking - failed in 1923. Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich by appointment of the legitimate President of Germany. The subsequent events were contingent on a (more or less silent) majority of Germans that did not mind switching to authoritarian Nazi rule. There was no one left with sufficient influence to defend the institutions of the republic. Now, I fail to see what more or less guns in private hands would have changed.
More generally speaking, there is probably no direct and causal (!) link between the level of private gun ownership and the establishment of dictatorships or other authoritarian regimes. I would rather assume that the most relevant parameter is the stability of the state itself, i.e. the acceptance of its institutions in society, its effectiveness in making and executing policies and its ability to sustain funding for its essential functions.
Consequently, stability can be challenged by a wide range of problems like corruption, political deadlock, or a financial crisis, and at last of course by external enemies (i.e. war).
And if the state is already fundamentally unstable a rather small group might be able to take it over and convert it into an authoritarian regime. But again, these people usually are not reliant on privately owned guns, usually they get access (early on) to the powers and arms reserved to the state itself. Resistance by others similarly depends on such resources. Privately owned guns would be utterly insufficient to prevent such a take-over or actually win a civil war. Moreover, authoritarian regimes are often at least passively accepted by the wider population (preferring stable conditions to civil war) - at least initially.
Now, this undermines the rationale behind the US constitution's "right to arms" as it is commonly stated. Consequently, it would be prudent to consider what disadvantages there are to privately owned guns. And that, again, depends very much on the society, its relationship with guns and, importantly, its stability. I would assume that less stable societies and societies with an exaggerated gun culture will be more likely to suffer from gun violence. Specifically, crime levels involving use of guns will be elevated, consequently deaths by guns will be higher. That might lead to increasing uncertainty in the general population, further destabilizing the society.
This should be the rationale behind limiting private gun ownership - and it should be discussed that way in the US as well.