[cardfan212]

Montana has some pretty beautiful scenery. Passed through there on a trip to Yellowstone a few years back.

Edited:

In other news, I convinced my grandpa to get a FOID card. He got it yesterday. Today he told me he bought a few things.

   Glock 17
Glock 23 or 27, can't quite remember
S&W 686
Ruger 10/22   

My grandpa is cool.

[download]

Well, the Tea Party's worse fear has been realised, "Obongos going to take our gunz!"

While I do agree with plans to keep legally purchased guns out of the hands of nutters, banning Ak47 won't do squat

[ewitwins]

Wait, what's this about an assault rifle ban?

[download]

ewitwins posted:

Wait, what's this about an assault rifle ban?

I don't think it will be an "Assult" weapon ban, he just said "Most American gun owners would agree, people don't need AK47s"

Anyway, no one in the Republican party will vote for this, and a few Democrats won't also

Edited:

"He offered no specific proposals but referred to background checks to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and preventing guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unbalanced."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wor...-1226435721625

Edited:

"Obama said today that every day and a half, the same number of young people die as a result of violent crime as were lost in the Aurora massacre."

Which is pretty true

Edited:

To me it doesn't sound like any sort of ban. more like he wants tougher background checks, maybe having them linked with your medical history in an attempt to find nutters like the Aurora Shooter

[ewitwins]

Honestly, if you've ever failed a psychological examination at any point in time, you should either have to go through extensive procedural testing and examination to have your file scrubbed, or you should not be allowed to purchase firearms.

Also, shit like this wouldn't happen if people fucking reported strange behavior in their coworkers and in their fellow students. The Tucson shooting wouldn't have happened if Pima Community College had taken the appropriate actions to secure the shooter (who was obviously mentally ill), and I'm sure people noticed signs of mental issues in the Aurora shooter long before the events that happened.

Edited:

Long story short if we had even a fraction of the mental health system that we had before Reagan fucking demolished it shit like this might not happen on such a frequent basis.

Edited:

Oh shit I just made an argument for gun control, I'd better take fucking cover

[download]

Agreed.

In Australia, we've had full background checks since 1996 (When a nutter who didn't even have a licence shot up a historical site and killed 35 people). Another thing they implemented was that whenever a doctor deems you mentally unfit, they fill out a form and send it to the police, the police then check your name against the gun registry and a few other things, then they confiscate your guns and blacklist you from owning them. Somehow though, despite this, a guy who was a diagnosed schizophrenic, managed to get a licence, buy a few pistols, and shoot up Monash University in Melbourne. So who fucked up? Either his doctors or the police. Yet despite the government fucking up, they ban all "concealable" handguns (i.e. handguns with barrel lengths under 120mm), magazines over 10 rounds, and calibres over 38cal/9mm.

[Mbbird]

-

I posted this from my phone at like 2 AM give nee a break. I don't even remember what I posted actually.

[Raijin]

laugh or cry
LAUGH OR CRY

[Ridge]

"Most American gun owners would agree, people don't need AK47s"

Breaking news: Obama out of touch with American gun owners!

[Trunk Monkay]

A democrat not knowing fuck all about gun owners or ownership? whaaa?

[ewitwins]

Trunk Monkay posted:

A democrat not knowing fuck all about gun owners or ownership? whaaa?

... I'm a democrat.

Really Trunk Monkay :I

Edited:

Also I FUCKING KNEW IT, GODDAMN IT

http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1200818

This is why we need more communication between the mental health sector and law enforcement, for fuck's sake.

[Mbbird]

Ridge posted:

Breaking news: Obama out of touch with American gun owners!

The rest of his speech was agreeable though. Hell, even in that snippet I think the emphasis is on need. Wanting is a separate thing that it seems this speech acknowledges.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...4711343287800/

He's not saying AK-47s and similarly classed rifles should be banned and never touch the hands of American civilians, he's just saying that gun control should be reasonable and safe. Of course, this is just a speech, and I don't stalk presidential candidates and everything they say so this may be contrary to any number of other things Obama has said, but it's worth at least half an ounce of comfort.

[Ridge]

But once the government determines what you do and don't need, they can make the leap to disallowing said unneeded property, and mandating what is needed. Like health insurance.

We don't need V6 or bigger engines. We don't need high speed internet.

[Mbbird]

Ridge posted:

But once the government determines what you do and don't need, they can make the leap to disallowing said unneeded property, and mandating what is needed. Like health insurance.

We don't need V6 or bigger engines. We don't need high speed internet.

But he goes on to say that if someone would want that, then optimally (here's the part where speeches are useless) they can go through the processes to get the rights to own it. Of course though, it goes both ways and I share the same worry.

[Ridge]

Mbbird posted:

they can go through the processes to get the rights to own it.

And he says right there that he is taking away people's right to own one.

[Mbbird]

Ridge posted:

And he says right there that he is taking away people's right to own one.

I think in light of the movie-theater shooting, people going crazy, and criminal records. It's the logical thing to do, no?

Again, vague un-opinionated statement that goes both ways. /politicians

[Ridge]

Why punish EVERYONE for the acts of a single person? By that logic, nobody should be allowed to own a Toyota because a family was killed by one. What about knives?

[Mbbird]

Ridge posted:

Why punish EVERYONE for the acts of a single person? By that logic, nobody should be allowed to own a Toyota because a family was killed by one. What about knives?

Did I misread something? I read it as individuals who fail to pass the background check would logically not have the right to own such weapons. Not a country-wide reaction to the shooting, but just a logical system (that is in place in some states) for gun licenses. By all means I am NOT agreeing with the soccermoms and idiots who think infinite power gun control is the answer to some psychopathic murderer.

[Ridge]

Mbbird posted:

Did I misread something? I read it as individuals who fail to pass the background check would logically not have the right to own such weapons. By all means I am NOT agreeing with the soccermoms and idiots who think infinite power gun control is the answer to some psychopathic murderer.

Sorry, seems we both had a misunderstanding then.

But yes, currently, if a person fails a background check, they are denied the gun purchase. They can fail the background check if they are a felon, or if they have a domestic violence on their record (even just an accusation of DV means the offender loses their gun rights).

[jimhowl33t]

Mbbird posted:

I think in light of the movie-theater shooting, people going crazy, and criminal records. It's the logical thing to do, no?

Yeah, ban fucking everything because of something that happens once in a blue moon.

[Mbbird]

jimhowl33t posted:

Yeah, ban fucking everything because of something that happens once in a blue moon.

Not what I'm saying. Not what Obama is saying. Not what anyone with a brain is saying.

Mbbird posted:

Did I misread something? I read it as individuals who fail to pass the background check would logically not have the right to own such weapons. Not a country-wide reaction to the shooting, but just a logical system (that is in place in some states) for gun licenses. By all means I am NOT agreeing with the soccermoms and idiots who think infinite power gun control is the answer to some psychopathic murderer.

Obama posted:

While AK-47 assault rifles are among standard infantry weapons of most armies, most gun owners would probably agree "we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing [such] weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," Obama told the civil-rights group.

[jimhowl33t]

Sorry, this whole story is getting my panties in a knot too easily, and right now I'm not even wearing underwear.

[Ridge]

Obama posted:

While AK-47 assault rifles are among standard infantry weapons of most armies, most gun owners would probably agree "we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing [such] weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," Obama told the civil-rights group.

So basically, he wants to double down on the laws that already exist? With the exception of the mental health report, which I agree should be part of a background check. The problem is, who decides what mental health condition is okay and not okay for gun ownership. I've heard others demand this change made, while also saying that buying a gun should, in itself, be classified as an act of mental illness.

[Aman VII]

I think the real issue at hand here is the banning of assault drum clips.

WHO NEEDS 100 ROUNDS UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO SHOOT UP A THEATRE?

checkmate gun owners.

[Ridge]

Aman VII posted:

I think the real issue at hand here is the banning of assault drum clips.

WHO NEEDS 100 ROUNDS UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO SHOOT UP A THEATRE?

checkmate gun owners.

Zombies.

[Trunk Monkay]

Aman VII posted:

I think the real issue at hand here is the banning of assault drum clips.

WHO NEEDS 100 ROUNDS UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO SHOOT UP A THEATRE?

checkmate gun owners.

that idiot with his drum mag actually "saved" lives, the drum caused his rifle to jam several times letting people get away or at least out of the line of fire.

[Mbbird]

Ridge posted:

So basically, he wants to double down on the laws that already exist? With the exception of the mental health report, which I agree should be part of a background check. The problem is, who decides what mental health condition is okay and not okay for gun ownership. I've heard others demand this change made, while also saying that buying a gun should, in itself, be classified as an act of mental illness.

Well, when you live in a country state like California where the laws are so convoluted that even if you've a perfect record and perfect mental health you are still restricted by countless other arbitrary laws on what you are allowed to own, then what Obama is saying sounds really good (aside from the fact that it's a speech and means little to nothing).

[DEMONSKUL]

Raijin posted:

laugh or cry
LAUGH OR CRY

It looks badass, but also stupid as fuck. Why a magazine if you also have a revolver magasine (forgot the word)?

[Trunk Monkay]

DEMONSKUL posted:

It looks badass, but also stupid as fuck. Why a magazine if you also have a revolver magasine (forgot the word)?

it says it right there, he added the magazine so its automatic now. I guess the charging handle towards the end of the barrel is there for good measure too.

[jimhowl33t]

DEMONSKUL posted:

It looks badass, but also stupid as fuck. Why a magazine if you also have a revolver magasine (forgot the word)?

because AWWW SHIT NIGGA

DARDICK GUN ALL UP IN THIS SHIT

[Ridge]

DEMONSKUL posted:

It looks badass, but also stupid as fuck. Why a magazine if you also have a revolver magasine (forgot the word)?

cylinder

[ForestRaptor]

I read the following argument from /k/ and I tought it was pretty good: "Some people dislike gays, some people dislike guns. We shouldn't be making our laws according to personal opinions."

[Ridge]

ForestRaptor posted:

I read the following argument from /k/ and I tought it was pretty good: "Some people dislike gays, some people dislike guns. We shouldn't be making our laws according to personal opinions."

Gays and guns for some, miniature American flags for others!

Edited:

http://sclipo.com/videos/view/kang-and-kodos

[download]

If I remember correctly, isn't there an organisation in the US that advocates giving gays guns to protect them from gay bashings? Good idea if you ask me

[Vaun Strungel]

download posted:

If I remember correctly, isn't there an organisation in the US that advocates giving gays guns to protect them from gay bashings? Good idea if you ask me

I think they're called the Pink Pistols.

[ewitwins]

Alright, so I've been mulling some things over, and I realize that this is the Firearms thread, but I think it's relevant to our interests (and it might help drag this sucker away from politics), but!

What would you guys consider having in your "ultimate bug-out kit". This includes:

Guns
Knives
Food
Medical Supplies
General Gear
Communication,

etc, etc.

I've been trying to come up with a list for months, and I tend to get overwhelmed with the amount of STUFF out there that I could include in an away-kit.

[Trunk Monkay]

I have a kit sort of like that for when I used to go deep sea fishing in case the boat decided to sink. more or less a waterproof duffle bag that had a satellite phone, first aid kit, a few cans of food, and a few tools in it. If a situation presented itself where I'd need to leave in a hurry with a gun, I'd grab that plus my mosin nagant+500 rounds for it.

[KommradKommisar]

I dont know why you would want to take a bulky,oudated(however, when the shit hits outdated might not mean anything), and slow to reload bolt action rifle when you could take a pistol and save space and room.

[Kartoffel]

KommradKommisar posted:

I dont know why you would want to take a bulky,oudated(however, when the shit hits outdated might not mean anything), and slow to reload bolt action rifle when you could take a pistol and save space and room.

What's more intimidating if you need to intimidate someone? A pistol, or a high-caliber rifle?

[Ridge]

Kartoffel posted:

What's more intimidating if you need to intimidate someone? A pistol, or a high-caliber rifle?

If you're intimidating someone, that means you are within a few feet of them. A pistol is going to be far more maneuverable, and it's going to be harder for the other person to grab it away from you.

Family picture!