stupid "traditions" and other rants

[BlaqueKatt]

My brain kinda combined a few things from reading one story-so argue any or all of them....just kinda ranty at the moment. Stupidity pisses me off-especially this blatant.


gah really

so it's "traditional" to shoot a high-powered firearm into the air to "celebrate" things? And the when you lose control of said firearm(presumably due to only holding it with one hand), and spray the crowd at your wedding killing 3 and injuring 8 more, you wonder why you were arrested? It was an "accident" you say? Hmmmm maybe if you had practiced PROPER FIREARM HANDLING, or ya know used blanks instead of LIVE AMMO-you wouldn't have murdered your father and two aunts.

And sadly had this happened in the US the gun control advocates would be all over this as a "tragic shooting" and a "reason to restrict or repeal the 2nd amendment".

No it's a reason to enact a law that says if someone dies due to someone's negligent use of a firearm they should be charged with manslaughter at the very least. Firearms are neutral objects, they are not good or bad really-they're inanimate objects-and people should be held accountable for their stupidity or sheer negligence.

Saw an article here in WI-Milwaukee actually where a man "accidentaly shot" his mother and 8 year-old son while removing a shotgun from a case-wasn't charged because he had "suffered enough". Why was it loaded, the safety off, and why was his finger on the trigger while he was pulling it out of the case? That is no "accident", that was sheer stupidity and neglect-guns don't just "go off and shoot people"-they need to be loaded, have the safety off, and the trigger pulled(in this case twice-yeah "accidentaly" sure )
Or the mom who took a loaded .38 away from her toddler that was playing with it and put it back in the same bottom dresser drawer and was shocked when her toddler shot himself with it the next day...also not charged....

Don't even get me started on the "we won't charge the parents who left their child in the car for 12 hours on a hot day and it cooked to death, because they've suffered enough"-yup they suffered the loss of a child, that their stupidity or carelessness directly caused. They have products you can buy that go under a carseat and register the weight of a child and alert you if you leave a baby in the seat-they run about $15-$20. No one buys them, babies still die, I guess a baby is worth less than $20. Or I guess if you don't want a baby it's an easy way to get away with infanticide-as no parent that leaves a child in a car to die is ever charged, due to the "horrific tragedy" they put themselves through.

[Kimmik]

Ok about the gun thing..

I agree that guns are not harmful... I was raised around an unlocked gun cabnet and they were loaded. I knew better then to touch them unless I had a DAMN good reason.. Ie Robber, Dangerous animal etc.. I never shot a person.. ok I tried to shoot my brother with the 22 and got my ass tanned good for the thought.

Guns are a useful tool and like all tools neither good nor bad in and of themselves. I grew up where we hunted for most of meat for the year.

I was always told NEVER point the gun at something unless you mean to kill said thing. I belive anyone who mishandles any type of firearm deserves the harshest penalty. And for gods sake no guns do not need to be locked up like fort knox

[HYHYBT]

Indeed; if the gun is for self-defense, then keeping it locked up makes it useless. But they shouldn't be left where toddlers can get at them, either.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

But, but, what goes up.... comes back down!

Do these people not remember that guns fire physical objects that are subject to all the same laws of physics as anything else? You wouldn't throw a rock up above your head figuring it wouldn't come back down and maim you... or maybe these people would, because they're stupid.

Unless of course they're like that one guy my uncle was talking about. Creative use of blank-firing props WIN on that note. But still.

And to hell with 'they're living the punishment'. Either they did it on purpose, in which case they're not living any punishment, or they're so titanically neglectful that they need a hell of a lot more than they're getting. Someone needs to speak for the dead child, not just the feelings of the parent.

[Red Panda]

I think saying somebody has suffered enough is code for "This person is too sympathetic, we'd never get a jury to convict them."

[ZedOmega]

Oh, them wacky Turks.

Seriously, it all happened at a wedding in Turkey. That still leaves the question of why the guy didn't use blanks.

[blas87]

People who are stupid and irresponsible with guns are the reason that the anti-gun people wet their panties over things like this and keep slowly getting our rights to own and use firearms chipped away.

It's not a toy, it's not for fun.

I heard something on the radio recently about a cop supposedly using his gun to itch his nose and he accidentally set it off. Maybe it's a good cover-up for a cop suicide, maybe it was made up, just maybe it was another idiot who had no business having a gun and a badge, but still. Ouch. I'm sure the anti-gun people went nuts with that one.

[Hobbs]

I was under the impression that those who participated in celebratory fire didn't have enough sense to use blanks in the first place, Zed.

Blas, considering this happened in Turkey I don't see how it would affect the US gun regulations. However, I did find it idiotic that the assault weapon ban was lifted (my grandfather hunted pretty well with a single-shot .22 and 12 gauge. There's no need to hunt Bambi with an M-16). Now these weapons are being used in the ongoing *Mexican Cartel wars.

*Historical note: In Texas where you can legally buy these weapons, the cartels will get people with no criminal record to buy assault weapons. Then, using various smuggling methods, have the weapons brought into Mexico to be used against the police and military.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Someone needs to speak for the dead child, not just the feelings of the parent.

Or the surviving but badly injured child?

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/ind...on_proste.html

This girl is an inspiration; she was so brave the way she handled such a horrific incident. However, the accident happened cuz a stupid teenager was playing with a loaded shotgun.

[BlaqueKatt]

However, I did find it idiotic that the assault weapon ban was lifted (my grandfather hunted pretty well with a single-shot .22 and 12 gauge. There's no need to hunt Bambi with an M-16). Now these weapons are being used in the ongoing *Mexican Cartel wars..

*sigh* really you're that ignorant on what h\the "assault weapons ban" really was?


an "assault weapon" is not an "assault rifle"

Hint:
It only banned cosmetic features
such as:
# folding or telescopic stock
# pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action
# grenade launcher
# bayonet mount
# flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle

they do not intrinsically increase the rate of fire or the lethality of the weapon.

Fully automatic weapons or assault rifles have been illegal since 1934-the "assault weapons ban" that expired had absolutely zero to do with it. So no you're not "hunting bambi with an M-16" as an M16 is still illegal to own.

Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax, and weeks of paperwork.

knowledge is power!

and here's one with a fun pic-two similar rifles-one legal one not-difference is only cosmetic-as in one has an adjustable stock-otherwise they are identical


oooo another set of pics

the M1 Garand-is considered an "assault weapon"
three different styles pictured-they all fire the same ammunition at the same rate-however the top two were legal under the AWB while the bottom one was not-see how pointless that piece of legislation really was?

[Hobbs]

Oh, well excuse the hell outta me. Rude much? The point remains, people use the civilian equivalent, the AR-15, which is also overkill. I don't see the reason why you need something over a bolt-action to properly hunt. The only difference in the military version and the civilian version is, as memory serves, fire rate. They fire the same cartidge and have the same range. There's absolutely no reason why you need the legal version.

[Plaidman]

You can legally own a mini-gun in USA.

Provided that it's the civilian-legal, which like, only 11 exist as of now.

Oh! And Flamethrowers!

I often wanted to have one, and just walk around downtown. I'm not legally allowed to USE it downtown, but I CAN legally carry it in the open, no license.

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't see the reason why you need something over a bolt-action to properly hunt. The only difference in the military version and the civilian version is, as memory serves, fire rate. They fire the same cartidge and have the same range.

so does this-a ruger mini 14-it just looks "less scary"

the .223 round fired by an AR-15 and the 5.56x45mm NATO fired by an M-16 are similar by design(it's a NATO standardized round)-while a rifle rated for the 5.56 will fire .223 rounds, it's unsafe to fire 5.56 rounds in a rifle rated for .223 due to the higher chamber pressure generated by the 5.56-though they are the same size

My ex-father-in-law hunted with an M1 Garand.
My ex-husband used a 30-06
I used a .303 British from WWII-civ equivalent the 30-30 Winchester.
Mine was bolt-action, and I had open sights, they both had scopes.

We used what we were comfortable with, or personal preference.

As an aside my .303 British was actually used in WWII-so I was "hunting with a military rifle"-bolt-action though it was

There's absolutely no reason why you need the legal version.

Do people need cell phones, laptop computers, and digital cameras-what happened to land lines, typewriters, and film cameras-oh that's right, progress.

So everything should progress but hunting/firearms should stay in the it's infancy? The general concencus of the second amendment is for the populace to be able to stand up to a tyrannical government, it makes no sense to give the government controlled military access to high tech firearms, and say "here civilians you aren't capable/allowed to have anything designed after 1940"

[Hobbs]

Do people need cell phones, laptop computers, and digital cameras-what happened to land lines, typewriters, and film cameras

Film cameras still exist. As do land lines and typewriters. And to an extent, people do need those things.

So everything should progress but hunting/firearms should stay in the it's infancy? The general concencus of the second amendment is for the populace to be able to stand up to a tyrannical government, it makes no sense to give the government controlled military access to high tech firearms, and say "here civilians you aren't capable/allowed to have anything designed after 1940"

Calling a bolt-action rifle the "infancy" of firearms erases about 500 years of technological progress. The bolt-action, quite frankly, could never be modified to fire full-auto, which is what a lot of people do to their semi-auto AR-15's (there are even kits available). People even full-auto their pistols, for Christ sakes.

The National Guard fulfills the role quite nicely and fits the criteria for a militia. If you bothered to read the Constitution (the part before the Amendments), you would find that the Congress has authority to regulate the militia and fund it, provide for it etc. That is exactly what the National Guard is. So do I think civilians need military-grade weapons? Hell no. All you get are those anti-government militias that spawn the Timothy McVeigh's of society.

[BlaqueKatt]

the bolt-action, quite frankly, could never be modified to fire full-auto, which is what a lot of people do to their semi-auto AR-15's (there are even kits available). People even full-auto their pistols, for Christ sakes.

And those are illegal, as in $10,000 fine and automatic 10 years in federal prison, and not that easy to do, despite what the media would have one believe(my uncle was a gunsmith)-plus let's look at how damn useless a full-auto rifle or pistol would be.

Average clip for an AR-15 holds 20-40 rounds depending on type-we'll use 40 for this simple math.

semi-auto-45 RPM=0.75 rps-clip empty in 53 seconds
3 round burst-90RPM=1.5 rps-clip empty in 27 seconds
full auto-800RPM=13rps-clip empty in 3 seconds

This is why eve the military does not have full auto on the M-16A2-all fully automatic military weapons are belt-feed, otherwise they are totally useless for anything-3 seconds of fire you may hit one or two targets max.

a pistol clip only holds 14 rounds

The National Guard fulfills the role quite nicely and fits the criteria for a militia. <snip>. That is exactly what the National Guard is.

um no-just no

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is not a state agency.
The training of the militia is to be left to the states according to the constitution-yet the national guard is trained along with the regular army, not by the states. The Militia is only to be called up in times of national emergency-I'm sure the guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan called up to active duty are executing the Laws of the Union, suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions.....as the constitution says the states' militias are to be used for when federalized.

Despite the 1990 case Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich vs. Department of Defense, where the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the National Guard is under federal orders and the state governor cannot object, yet according to the National defense act of 1916-"the right of the President to “Federalize” the National Guard in times of emergency, with individual States’ militias reverting to their control upon the end of the declared emergency was established"-they do not-so they are under federal orders-and thus not a state militia now are they? The Army National Guard provides 46 percent of the combat units and 28 percent of the support forces of the Total Army

And yes I am aware that congress decided to expand it's powers in 1952-to say "we can call up the national guard anytime we want for whatever reason we feel like" and forced "duel enlistment" into both the state guard and national guard in 1933. So one cannot enlist in the state guard only-they are forced into federal enlistment-a clear conflict of interest for a group that is supposed to be a "state agency".