Lurker > BaiusGaltar

And @Funbazooka was never seen again.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Antifar posted...

"People will kill those responsible for enforcing a law" seems like a poor argument against the law, imo.

Not making a law because of the level of confrontation and violence it would cause, seems like a strong argument, imo.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Duncanwii posted...

ThunderMuffin posted...

if they change it I just hope they never change the first

The first amendment isnt hazardous to public safety like the second. Words cant kill 9 people in 60 seconds like a gun can.

YOL TOOR SHUL
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Funbazooka posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Doom_Art posted...

I don't know if the 2nd amendment says that you have the right to by an AR15

Because it's a firearm. It doesn't have to specify each and every type of firearm. But I bet you already knew this.

Why can't I have a nuke, then?

Are you saying a nuke, is a firearm? Just like an AR15?

Who are you trying to kid with this utter nonsense

I'm not. Where in the second amendment does it mention firearms?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Funbazooka posted...

Doom_Art posted...

I don't know if the 2nd amendment says that you have the right to by an AR15

Because it's a firearm. It doesn't have to specify each and every type of firearm. But I bet you already knew this.

Why can't I have a nuke, then?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Verdekal posted...

Can we bear nuclear arms?

Yes, we can. Bear doesn't mean hold in your hands/arms.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Duncanwii posted...

young_flip posted...

It's not about guns mainly but mans natural right to self defense.

But even then there are limits on what qualifies as self defense. If someone slaps you in the face you cant pull out an Ak47 and blow them away, thats manslaughter.

Depends where you live.

---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

young_flip posted...

It's not about guns mainly but mans natural right to self defense.

Should there be limitations in what someone can defend themselves with?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

DrizztLink posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Verdekal posted...

Can we bear nuclear arms?

You sprung my trap card before I could.

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

You can, they just get radiation burns.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Verdekal posted...

Can we bear nuclear arms?

You sprung my trap card before I could.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

But how do you address that? How do you make it okay for someone to come out and say "I've been having thoughts of killing a bunch of people then myself in a blaze of glory"?

Ideally, you should be tackling that by not letting people get to the point where they're having those thoughts. I'm fond of the notion that isolation, lack of community, and antipsychotics with dissociative properties contributing to the problem.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Or are there limitations?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Lol, yeah sure let's add a private group of people with guns that have no accountability to public. That sure will lower the death count in a shooting.

Armed Private security has existed since long before the US was even born.

Anything of value that needed protecting and you can't trust the government or count on them, hire professionals.

This thing is far from unheard of.

All rich people have their own private security force.

Private security services exist for many facilities and places.

Most banks hire Private Security, same with Malls, jewelry shops, any place of "High Value".

Nothing I propose is out of the norm other than how many people are needed should be multiplied by several factors and more places needing it.

So, your solution is basically to make the state fair look like the West Bank.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

nemu posted...

I'm sure there are areas that could be improved, but anyone who thinks shootings could be solved by it has no idea how many guns exist in this country. This is an issue of mental health, media coverage that all but "worships" these shooters, and I'm sure several other factors.

It's not about solving or stopping all mass shootings, it's about reducing incidents and death counts.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

fenderbender321 posted...

Garioshi posted...

coh posted...

Gun control laws arent going to stop mass shootings. Its a knee jerk reaction based on emotion.

Australia would beg to differ.

So wait a minute are we talking gun control or complete gun ban?

Australia doesn't have a complete gun ban.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Never. Violence happened before him and will happen after him. Just too bad people are always blaming the wrong thing.

Violence happened before, and it will happen after, of course. Do you think that some of these people may be emboldened by Trumps nationalist rhetoric and policies?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

@Muflaggin posted...

Literally wouldn't make a difference. If you want a gun you'll get a gun.

Then why ban or control anything?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

cardoor123 posted...

Fuck no. You motherfuckers are not going to take my guns away. I'll fucking die trying.

Troll post.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

What would you do?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Topic
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

JScriv posted...

Gladius_ posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Fossil posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

This isn't true.

Wrong. It's just some term coined by liberals and the media to make guns sound scarier. Assault weapons don't exist.

Except it has a federal definition that you just ignored, so you could make this point.

A federal definition that has been altered in the hopes that guns can largely be removed from the public. Note in that same paragraph it talks about the "Assault Gun Ban" of 1994 and how it was defined differently back then.

What wikipedia defines as an "Assault Weapon" includes about 90% of all modern firearms. This includes firearms primarily used for hunting and target shooting. Meanwhile a grenade launcher isn't.

This. Assault weapon is a political BS term that was made-up to make modern firearms seem scary to the public. It is not an actual category of firearm.

Except, it has a specific federal definition...
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

a-c-a-b posted...

Johnny_Nutcase posted...

@a-c-a-b

Your thoughts?

I get my drugs from Hell's Angels so I don't really care.

So, you have the conservative "I got mine, fuck you" mentality. You always act superior because you spout liberal taking points, but at heart, you're mean, selfish and bitter.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Gladius_ posted...

SquirrelyDan posted...

muchdran posted...

SquirrelyDan posted...

Why does the average civilian need any guns at all? They don't. If you claim it's just for hunting, then I'm calling bs. Get a bow. If you like to collect them, then get replicas.

Self defense?

More bs.

I guess I completely imagined de-esculating a situation with my handgun. I guess if I go looking I will find zero other cases as well, right? Note it isn't as rare as you think. Estimates put defensive gun use in the u.s. at 500,000 to 3,000,000 a year but only 8% of the time is the aggressor shot. Usually the gun is usually used to ward the aggressor off. Seems in most incidents fire arm owners are responsible..

Source?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Doom_Art posted...

You can't be bothered to be specific so Iunno why I should be

My whole point is that specifics are irrelevant. Should undocumented immigrants receive the same level of healthcare as citizens in a free healthcare system?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Doom_Art posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So you're saying Canadian pharma is incapable of making more drugs to meet a higher demand?

In the near term, yes. Considering that we have occasional issues with shortages as is.

BaiusGaltar posted...

What specifics would change anything? This whole argument is about foreigners receiving the same benefits as citizens.

If you can't be bothered then w.e. lol

Like Roast said. In favor of emergency care to anyone who needs it. But there's certainly more to the issue than that.

Like what?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Doom_Art posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

What are you gaining from being purposely obtuse?

If he's expecting me to answer a question on a big issue the least he could do would be to not make it so vague and nonspecific

What specifics would change anything? This whole argument is about foreigners receiving the same benefits as citizens.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

DarkRoast posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Why, what would that change? Should on undocumented immigrants receive the same free healthcare as US citizens?

US citizens don't even get free healthcare, so I don't know what you're trying to say.

I should have been more clear about that, but I mean the talking point of the US getting free healthcare and extending it to undocumented immigrants. It's just been talked about so much, that I didn't think to specifically clarify it.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Doom_Art posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

People here for an afternoon aren't immigrants. With the push for free healthcare in the United States, should undocumented immigrants receive the same level of care as US citizens?

Be more specific yo

Why, what would that change? Should on undocumented immigrants receive the same free healthcare as US citizens?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Doom_Art posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

Are they people crossing the border for an afternoon? Are they people who've lived here for decades? What's the level of care they're getting? Be specific

People here for an afternoon aren't immigrants. With the push for free healthcare in the United States, should undocumented immigrants receive the same level of care as US citizens?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Doom_Art posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

So, Doom, should the US provide free healthcare to undocumented immigrants?

What would that entail

Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

DarkRoast posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

So, Doom, should the US provide free healthcare to undocumented immigrants?

We spend more on healthcare than any other country on Earth yet somehow can't provide it as equally as most other countries.

That's a problem.

I agree.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

So, Doom, should the US provide free healthcare to undocumented immigrants?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Shablagoo posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Really?

Honestly, this is a really stupid and douchey thing to say. It's like comparing someone that didn't want to clean the bathrooms at work, but did because they were told to, to a Nazi just following orders.

WHAT?

No, this is a moral issue. This is part of deciding the political fate of America. It shouldnt be treated like the fucking Superbowl.

Idk about all yall living real nice lives or some shit but many of us out here NEED healthcare and NEED our living conditions improved. Its bad out here FOR SOME OF US and fuck CNN for corporatizing what should be something widely available to the public.

They streamed it on on cnn.com for free, you didn't even have to log on.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Shablagoo posted...

Well hey joe youre wrong and you know it. Would you support slavery if it were still the law?

Really?

Honestly, this is a really stupid and douchey thing to say. It's like comparing someone that didn't want to clean the bathrooms at work, but did because they were told to, to a Nazi just following orders.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Feline_Heart posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Why did you taste a switch cartridge?

It was a meme when the console first came out

Oh.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Why did you taste a switch cartridge?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

muchdran posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

CADE FOSTER posted...

cant get a fully auto weapon without a specific license and that shit aint easy to get

Assault weapons don't have to be fully automatic

Which ones?

Read the topic and the definition of assault weapon.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

And the reason the military wants them is they make them more capable of engaging multiple targets for extended periods of time.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

Except that's not how the definition functions. Memes don't make very good arguments.

Neither does your half-baked logic you've demonstrated in this topic, so we're even.

Like what?

Like this lump of coal:

BaiusGaltar posted...

Reasons that make them more capable of engaging multiple targets for extended periods of time.

Well, there is a reason they were developed for the military, then trickled down to civilians
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

Except that's not how the definition functions. Memes don't make very good arguments.

Neither does your half-baked logic you've demonstrated in this topic, so we're even.

Like what?
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Paragon21XX posted...

Except that's not how the definition functions. Memes don't make very good arguments.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

Irony posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

uwnim posted...

Assault weapon doesn't really mean much and is really just about how scary the weapon looks and not how it functions, so no.

This isn't true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.

Which only proves the nonsensical nature of the term "assault weapon." Rifles and pistols have been semi-auto and made with detachable box magazines for more than 100 years which means the features are "in common use." And the "other features" often referred to are hardly consequential to their overall lethality.

Pistol grip? More comfortable to hold while shouldering rifle, definitely NOT for "spray-firing from the hip."
Barrel shroud? So you don't fucking burn your hands on the barrel.
Muzzle device? Allows you to keep sights on target by eliminating barrel rise and/or prevents shooter's vision from being obscured by the flash.
Telescoping stock? To accommodate shooters of varying heights and builds.

Supressor? So the deer dun hear you fire

*So you need less or no hearing protection. A gun with a suppressor is still quite loud, just no longer loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. Hollywood has flimflammed everyone into believing it makes guns near silent.

And why aren't you responding to my posts @BaiusGaltar ? Afraid?

Lol. Shaking. You really have an inflated senses of ego.
The features listed aren't necessary for hunting or home defenses, unless you're defending your home from a large group of armed invaders.

So why do they deserve to be regulated to begin with? The truth is that you have been flimflammed by hoplophobes into thinking those features are dangerous or unfit for civilian use when they are simply there for ergonomic reasons.

Reasons that make them more capable of engaging multiple targets for extended periods of time.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Gladius_ posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

Irony posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

uwnim posted...

Assault weapon doesn't really mean much and is really just about how scary the weapon looks and not how it functions, so no.

This isn't true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.

Which only proves the nonsensical nature of the term "assault weapon." Rifles and pistols have been semi-auto and made with detachable box magazines for more than 100 years which means the features are "in common use." And the "other features" often referred to are hardly consequential to their overall lethality.

Pistol grip? More comfortable to hold while shouldering rifle, definitely NOT for "spray-firing from the hip."
Barrel shroud? So you don't fucking burn your hands on the barrel.
Muzzle device? Allows you to keep sights on target by eliminating barrel rise and/or prevents shooter's vision from being obscured by the flash.
Telescoping stock? To accommodate shooters of varying heights and builds.

Supressor? So the deer dun hear you fire

*So you need less or no hearing protection. A gun with a suppressor is still quite loud, just no longer loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. Hollywood has flimflammed everyone into believing it makes guns near silent.

And why aren't you responding to my posts @BaiusGaltar ? Afraid?

Lol. Shaking. You really have an inflated senses of ego.
The features listed aren't necessary for hunting or home defenses, unless you're defending your home from a large group of armed invaders.

No. That's not the problem. The problem with wikipedia is it doesn't say having the feature makes it an assault weapon. According to wikipedia it states if it can have those features it's an assault weapon. Every gun can have attachments made for it. By that definition every gun can be an assault weapon.

The only one that talks about accepting mods/attachments is the threaded barrel, the rest must be a mod/attachment on the weapon.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Paragon21XX posted...

Irony posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

uwnim posted...

Assault weapon doesn't really mean much and is really just about how scary the weapon looks and not how it functions, so no.

This isn't true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.

Which only proves the nonsensical nature of the term "assault weapon." Rifles and pistols have been semi-auto and made with detachable box magazines for more than 100 years which means the features are "in common use." And the "other features" often referred to are hardly consequential to their overall lethality.

Pistol grip? More comfortable to hold while shouldering rifle, definitely NOT for "spray-firing from the hip."
Barrel shroud? So you don't fucking burn your hands on the barrel.
Muzzle device? Allows you to keep sights on target by eliminating barrel rise and/or prevents shooter's vision from being obscured by the flash.
Telescoping stock? To accommodate shooters of varying heights and builds.

Supressor? So the deer dun hear you fire

*So you need less or no hearing protection. A gun with a suppressor is still quite loud, just no longer loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. Hollywood has flimflammed everyone into believing it makes guns near silent.

And why aren't you responding to my posts @BaiusGaltar ? Afraid?

Lol. Shaking. You really have an inflated senses of ego.
The features listed aren't necessary for hunting or home defenses, unless you're defending your home from a large group of armed invaders.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Gladius_ posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Does this include 90% of all firearms?

Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine[11][14]
Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[14] which reduces the overall length of the firearm[16]
A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon[14]
Bayonet lug,[14] which allows the mounting of a bayonet
Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,[14] compensator or muzzle brake
Grenade launcher[14]
Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.[citation needed]

Here's the problem with wording

"Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:"

Common attributes in the legislative definitions means when defining assault weapons these are the most common citations. This means, depending on state, you can find different terms and frequency on which attachments are attributed to Assault Weapons. So on how many legislations does an assault weapon require 4+ of the items listed? Do you know? Because if it's "One or more" then yes that includes just about any gun and a ban on "Assault Guns" is an effective ban on "All guns."

Nope. The states don't determine federal laws or definitions.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

mD_atheist posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

uwnim posted...

Assault weapon doesn't really mean much and is really just about how scary the weapon looks and not how it functions, so no.

This isn't true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.

So do you think semi automatic pistols should be banned?

No. "and one more more other features" is a key part.

Gladius_ posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Fossil posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

This isn't true.

Wrong. It's just some term coined by liberals and the media to make guns sound scarier. Assault weapons don't exist.

Except it has a federal definition that you just ignored, so you could make this point.

A federal definition that has been altered in the hopes that guns can largely be removed from the public. Note in that same paragraph it talks about the "Assault Gun Ban" of 1994 and how it was defined differently back then.

What wikipedia defines as an "Assault Weapon" includes about 90% of all modern firearms. This includes firearms primarily used for hunting and target shooting. Meanwhile a grenade launcher isn't.

Does this include 90% of all firearms?

Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine[11][14]
Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[14] which reduces the overall length of the firearm[16]
A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon[14]
Bayonet lug,[14] which allows the mounting of a bayonet
Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,[14] compensator or muzzle brake
Grenade launcher[14]
Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.[citation needed]
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Fossil posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

This isn't true.

Wrong. It's just some term coined by liberals and the media to make guns sound scarier. Assault weapons don't exist.

Except it has a federal definition that you just ignored, so you could make this point.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

uwnim posted...

Assault weapon doesn't really mean much and is really just about how scary the weapon looks and not how it functions, so no.

This isn't true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Solid Sonic posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Assault weapons don't have to be fully automatic

So is this argument about people modifying semi-auto weapons to make them full auto for all intents and purposes?

No.
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

CADE FOSTER posted...

cant get a fully auto weapon without a specific license and that shit aint easy to get

Assault weapons don't have to be fully automatic
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...

Topic
---

Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica...