More Stuff

[Jabberwonky]

Sarge and Al would likely have a field day with this:

Road Buckle on Twin Cities Area Highway Makes Vehicles Go Airborne

That's more fun to watch if you excitedly say 'Whee!" every time someone catches air...

[AnotherFairportfan]

Sarge and Al would likely have a field day with this:

Road Buckle on Twin Cities Area Highway Makes Vehicles Go Airborne

That's more fun to watch if you excitedly say 'Whee!" every time someone catches air...

I was thinking it.

[Alkarii]

Is it just me, or do people generally misread my posts, or pick them apart to take things out of context? It hasn't happened here, but some asshole elsewhere jumped all over me for saying that gun control wasn't the answer to the problem of things like the shooting in Orlando. What I had stated, REPEATEDLY, was that the shooter had been under investigation twice, and that should have either been enough to put him on a terror watch list to prevent him from passing a firearms check, or at least alert law enforcement that they needed to watch him (as in,law enforcement officers/agents watching him through a pair of binoculars), follow him, and intercept him the moment he stopped and pulled out his weapons.

But instead, people would take one sentence, or even just a party of a sentence, and ignore the rest of what I was saying, while also implying that civilians, like myself, shouldn't be able to have any sort of access to any semiautomatic or automatic firearm. I'd like to point out that while the shooter's second weapon, a Glock 17, is not the same as my handgun, which is a Berretta 92FS (aka, M9), they are the same caliber, and I think either have the same capacity, or at least are close. But the implication was that these sorts of guns are marketed as mass murder weapons. While my rifle is a bolt action with a limited capacity, it has much more power, and has better range. If I got a semiauto adapter and a larger magazine, my rifle would probably be a bit more dangerous.

The messed up part is the person saying that is one of the moderators.

Does it make me a monster for owning either one? How about wanting to own an AR-10? (.308 Win, 20 round magazine)

[Alkarii]

Had to bury another puppy when I got home from work. Getting tired of this shit.

[Dave]

Had to bury another puppy when I got home from work. Getting tired of this shit.

Damn... not good. That many, so suddenly... canine parvovirus? If that gets into a community of dogs, it can kill a lot very quickly... highly contagious.

[Alkarii]

Dad says it's distemper, and I had thought that was another name for parvo, which my aunt said has different symptoms. But dad said they aren't the same, and if they are all drinking and eating from the same bowls, then they can spread distemper that way very rapidly.

From six, down to two, and only one was actually given to a new home. Mom's taking the last two to the vet tomorrow. They haven't shown any symptoms yet.

[Dave]

Yeah, that's another bad one. Your dad is right... although they're both viral diseases, highly contagious, and have some symptoms in common, distemper and parvo are different diseases... not even closely related, genetically.

Distemper is somewhat related to the viruses which cause measles and mumps in humans.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that the two who aren't yet showing symptoms will survive. Really sorry to hear that your family and pups are having to go through this ordeal...

[Jabberwonky]

Is it just me, or do people generally misread my posts, or pick them apart to take things out of context? It hasn't happened here, but some asshole elsewhere jumped all over me for saying that gun control wasn't the answer to the problem of things like the shooting in Orlando. What I had stated, REPEATEDLY, was that the shooter had been under investigation twice, and that should have either been enough to put him on a terror watch list to prevent him from passing a firearms check, or at least alert law enforcement that they needed to watch him (as in,law enforcement officers/agents watching him through a pair of binoculars), follow him, and intercept him the moment he stopped and pulled out his weapons.

But instead, people would take one sentence, or even just a party of a sentence, and ignore the rest of what I was saying, while also implying that civilians, like myself, shouldn't be able to have any sort of access to any semiautomatic or automatic firearm. I'd like to point out that while the shooter's second weapon, a Glock 17, is not the same as my handgun, which is a Berretta 92FS (aka, M9), they are the same caliber, and I think either have the same capacity, or at least are close. But the implication was that these sorts of guns are marketed as mass murder weapons. While my rifle is a bolt action with a limited capacity, it has much more power, and has better range. If I got a semiauto adapter and a larger magazine, my rifle would probably be a bit more dangerous.

The messed up part is the person saying that is one of the moderators.

Does it make me a monster for owning either one? How about wanting to own an AR-10? (.308 Win, 20 round magazine)

Owning a gun makes no one a monster. Using a gun in the manner of the Pulse shooter does. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Used in the wrong way, a hammer could be the instrument of a mass execution. Most people who oppose gun control are set on that agenda. I found few who are willing to listen with a cool head and calm emotions.
I grew up in a house with guns, rifles and pistols, and there were never any even close calls with them. We were taught gun safety at a young age and that they were not toys to be played with. In my high school there were quite a few trucks with gun racks in the rear window, with guns in them and there were never any used in even a credible threat against anyone. What has changed the population? I'm not sure, it's one of those things that have too many vectors to pin down. But I will always disagree with gun bans and support the right to own one.

[Alkarii]

Well, either way, I feel confident that the government, which so far has shown they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed on the underside, is aware that they wouldn't be able to actually manage a ban and seizure of all the guns. The military is pro second amendment, so they won't help. Most police would be unwilling to attempt it, either, especially if the military may try to stop them.

So the only option would be to bring in an outside force, like the UN. If any president is stupid enough to bring foreign military onto American soil, not only does that individual risk a siege from our own military, those foreigners would have to be aware that, and I have only heard this from a source that isn't completely reliable, the Geneva Convention applies to militaries, not civilians. So... Yeah. Not that I would do anything of the sort myself, though.

But the most insulting part is this guy said he was terrified because I own a semiautomatic handgun with fifteen round magazines. He's in either France or Quebec, and I am sure, as many times as I've said it, that I live in Arkansas. And I also pointed out that I bought it while on convalescent leave from BCT, AFTER having firearms safety drilled into my head. Hell, I only ever chamber a round if I think I may have to use it immediately, like when the dogs attacked the goats or I'm up on the mountain. It actually makes me a little nervous to do that, because the holster is a belt mount, meaning I could potentially get a bullet in the leg. Although I keep the safety on until and unless I intend to shoot, accidents can happen.

However, I can afford a tactical holster now, so it'd ride on my leg instead of bouncing off of my hip.

[lake_wrangler]

Does it make me a monster for owning either one? How about wanting to own an AR-10? (.308 Win, 20 round magazine)

YOU. ARE. A. MON...


...


...


Nah, I can't keep a straight face...

I don't own any firearm, nor am I an American, but I agree with your position.

I did fire a gun once (was it a rifle, a shotgun, I don't know...) on a farm (in Georgia), shooting some target, some distance away. (Lousy shot, am I... But then, I didn't realize at the time that my left eye is my dominant eye, so I should have been shooting left-handed, to use the left eye to aim. Maybe that might have helped.) I do not feel the need for a firearm, though I can see how they could be useful. And had I ever gone hunting with my dad or one of my uncles, I would have probably caught the bug...

[Alkarii]

I actually bought the handgun because our house was burglarized twice, and the police refused to do much more than show up and treat us like shit because they had to actually do something.

In unrelated news, I might call in to work, as I have been up for almost twenty four hours. I tried sleeping last night, but I couldn't actually sleep. Considering that I would be moving cars in a cramped parking lot, I probably need to be alert, not to mention the drive home, at which point, of I go, I will have been awake for 33 hours by the time I clock out.

[Atomic]

I've always gotten a kick out of "...and (s)he had THOUSANDS of rounds of ammo in their arsenal!"

Says the ignorant non-shooter. How much toilet paper do you buy? Really? Bulk purchases might last a month and some left over for your family, eh? Same with ammo.

100 rounds of .22 LR is a warmup. When I was on a college rifle team (.22 trap - 10 meter), 200+ was a decent training session, and that was twice a week, minimum. Out on the range, if you want to keep proficient for hunting, you're going to burn a case a month, especially if you want to go for those 200+ yard shots.

Skeet? Has anybody shot skeet and used less than 50 rounds? How do you practice?

Now multiply that times the number of weapon types/calibers available for the hobby plinker and seasonal hunter:

.22 rifle for plinking
.32/.38 pistol for self defense and farming (snake shot, anyone?)
.44/.45 -- don't get me started on Must Start With .4... to be worthwhile
.410 kiddy skeet
12 guage skeet/hunting
.223/.30/.303/7.62 for hunting (and lots of target practice)

So right there, if you've got a plinker, hunter, and defender, I'd be surprised if you had less then 5000 rounds on a shelf.

[Alkarii]

Well... Between my two guns, I'm sure I currently have less than 200 rounds, but that's because I haven't been able to really afford ammo until recently.

[GlytchMeister]

The one thing that gets me worried when people put their trust in "the military serves the constitution, not the government" and "the military would never go along with this crap" is...

"I was just following orders."

I'm sorry, I know a lot of people in or from the military, and I realize a LOT of men and women would not agree with the orders they are given if they are told to take the guns away from we the people. But just because soldiers disagree with their orders doesn't mean they won't carry out said orders.

I'm not military myself, so I might be missing something very important, but this makes me... Wary.

And to be perfectly honest, I won't trust we the people to do anything about it if this comes to pass anyway. Too many people are willing to lay down and let the people in charge walk all over them.

You know who I would trust to do something? Criminals. Yes, they are an unruly lot, but I'll be damned before I call any of 'em meek, order-following, law-abiding, or right-surrendering. They'd go apeshit. They already have a chip on their shoulder for all things authority. If "Authority" decided to go too far... If the entire criminal element of the U.S. were to be galvanized and united to a single goal...

[GlytchMeister]

I do think if anyone brought foreign troops here, that would be enough to make everyone stand up for themselves.

They would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[Sgt. Howard]

The one thing that gets me worried when people put their trust in "the military serves the constitution, not the government" and "the military would never go along with this crap" is...

"I was just following orders."

I'm sorry, I know a lot of people in or from the military, and I realize a LOT of men and women would not agree with the orders they are given if they are told to take the guns away from we the people. But just because soldiers disagree with their orders doesn't mean they won't carry out said orders.

I'm not military myself, so I might be missing something very important, but this makes me... Wary.

And to be perfectly honest, I won't trust we the people to do anything about it if this comes to pass anyway. Too many people are willing to lay down and let the people in charge walk all over them.

You know who I would trust to do something? Criminals. Yes, they are an unruly lot, but I'll be damned before I call any of 'em meek, order-following, law-abiding, or right-surrendering. They'd go apeshit. They already have a chip on their shoulder for all things authority. If "Authority" decided to go too far... If the entire criminal element of the U.S. were to be galvanized and united to a single goal...

When you wear the uniform of your country here in the US, you swear an oath to protect the Constitution with your life- not the president, not the government, but the Constitution. Those of us who are honorably discharged and hold that oath as still valid are called "Oath keepers".

We outnumber the active Military.

"I was Just following orders" - see "Nuremburg"

[Warrl]

I grew up in a house with guns, rifles and pistols, and there were never any even close calls with them. We were taught gun safety at a young age and that they were not toys to be played with. In my high school there were quite a few trucks with gun racks in the rear window, with guns in them and there were never any used in even a credible threat against anyone. What has changed the population?

Far fewer people growing up with guns, rifles, pistols, and an education in gun safety - that's one major contribution.

In other words, the efforts to ban or restrict privately-owned guns are a major factor in any increase in people being stupid with them.

(People being deliberately evil with them is a more complex problem. However, we can say confidently that banning honest law-abiding people from having something is not an effective way of keeping it out of the hands of those willing - let alone deliberately intending - to break the law. In fact, nearly all mass shootings in the US have occurred in places where the perpetrators could be confident of a large number of unarmed victims and little to no armed opposition - schools full of minors, "gun-free zones", cities with really restrictive gun legislation... and, obviously, the perpetrators somehow managed to get guns INTO these places, in spite of any and all laws they had to break to do so.)

[GlytchMeister]

Re: Nuremburg: yep, that's pretty much what I was thinking of. If we believe, oh, say... Half of the people who offered "befehl ist befehl" as a defense (as in, we assume half of those nazi bastards were lying crapcakes)... It's surprising how many horrors and atrocities a person will commit because he is ordered to.

There is a notorious psychological experiment where people are told by an authoritative sort of person who seems in charge to press a button that delivers an increasingly powerful electric shock to someone else in another room. The electric shock goes well above leathal levels.

The person "being shocked" isn't, but the button pusher doesn't know that. All they hear are the increasingly pained exclamations, which turn to screams... And then they are completely silent.

It's horrifying how many people went through the entire experiment. Very few told the order-giver to shove it.

...

Gun Laws don't stop law-breakers. They only disarm the law-abiders.

[Alkarii]

Which is exactly what I keep saying, but these people don't listen, and vilify anyone who says anything conservative. I honestly don't know why I even bother visiting the Awkward Zombie site anymore.

[AnotherFairportfan]

The only thing i am going to contribute to the current discussion is to say that citing Nuremberg in support of any argument is dangerous - Nuremberg was one of the better-presented examples of a well-organised kangaroo court in modern history.

Nuremberg was rigged from the beginning, and demonstrates that the only real "war crime" is losing.

In some cases it was so blatant that there were actual protests - Halsey and Nimitz made enough noise that the tribunal backed off on trying to sentence Doenitz and Raeder to death for conducting unlimited submarine warfare - in the Atlantic - by basically pointing out that they had received medals for the same thing - in the Pacific.

Not saying that most of the Nuremberg defendants didn't deserve what they got ... but it' NOT a shining exampke of even-handed impartial justice.