Korean Job Discussion Forums

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Captain Corea]

But that's the point... in Canada you need PAL certification and such, in the US you can walk into a gun show and buy one.

Seriously, you don't see the difference there?

[Titus]

[Leon]

[young_clinton]

Looks like he has a serious case of hyperthyroidism. Look at his mugshot.

http://www.inquisitr.com/283380/james-holmes-joker-mugshot-released/

[TheUrbanMyth]

[northway]

[bucheon bum]

[Fox]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[northway]

I'm not arguing with you on this one, just contributing.

Okay, that test sounds kind of useless, agreed. Can you walk into a gun shop and take the test, or is it like getting a driver's license?

I do think you're overestimating what driving to a different state entails, though. There are five states within an hour drive of my parents' house, not including the state it's in.

On edit, in response to the acquisition by legal means argument: the gun control argument is that the loopholes and legal grey areas need to be fixed, while the gun lobby is typically against any further restrictions on guns. Therefore, being able to drive over a state line and be subject to more lax gun laws needs to be part of the conversation.

[Steelrails]

I was beginning to think the Dave's anti-black rhetoric wouldn't show up on time, but the last couple of pages proved that while that train may be late, it does always show up.

As for guns and gun control, the more I live here the less pro-gun I get. The sheer fact that I have zero fear of non North Korean guns causing me pain and suffering is certainly a relief. It's nice knowing that if an argument ensues, while someone may grab a weapon, at least they won't draw a gun.

Now if I was back in America, my attitude might change.

But the whole notion of having to guns to fight off your government or to dissuade invasion by a foreign power, in the American context, strikes me as more and more ludicrous. Seriously, no country on Earth could set an army on continental American soil and last more than a few days. The Atlantic and Pacific guarantee our safety and its more likely that Mexico and Canada would go to war with each other than with the U.S.

As for the government, really? The government would get bought out before it would get military couped. A simple strike paralyzing commerce would be more effective than a bunch of rag-tag militia types setting off bombs and running around with AR-15s.

We don't need a militia, haven't in 100 years. Heck the militia has been little more than an excuse to get drunk, shoot some guns (great combination) and award people some titles since about 1850. In the Civil War the militias proved to be little more than funneling grounds to the Volunteer Armies or a place to go and be a draft dodger. In the past people had to turn in their guns when they entered a city. That was seen as reasonable.

Now, on the other hand, if one is expected to furnish their own arms in order to be part of the militia (as antiquated and ludicrous as the notion is at the present), then that would mean that assault rifles and 30 rd. capacity magazines would be acceptable. As a supplementary defense force, sending the militia into battle with single shot hunting rifles would end up with a bunch of fleeing and dead militia men. As for heavy weaponry, in the past artillery pieces and such were often furnished to militia units and were organized by the state governments or municipalities so that would take care of citizens buying tanks and heavy weaponry.

Also the utility of regulating "Assault Style" weapons and high-capacity magazines is dubious at best. Someone mentioned that 100 rd. capacity magazines were military issue, I'd imagine for M-16s and the like they are not, because they are prone to jamming and seem inappropriate for trained soldiers with fire discipline. In fact there may have been fewer deaths because the shooter, Mr. Holmes, used a high capacity drum magazine which reports indicate jammed. As to what constitutes an "Assault Weapon", in the eyes of the hysterical public it means anything that looks "military". Unfortunately that means little in terms of its actually capabilities. Is the rifle any less deadly because its stock is wood and not black metal/polymer?

I don't know, my feelings have become less strong on this issue, now I just want the idiocy on both sides to end. I cringe when people scream about needing guns in case the Chicoms invade or to prevent the NWO takeover and I cringe when I hear people talk about banning high capacity magazines or "Assault Weapons" as though that would stop things, often these people can't even define basic types of guns and how they operate.

But I do find myself less and less persuaded by the argument that everyone should be armed. All that's going to do is get 50 idiots accidentally shooting the wrong person and a bunch of children and old folks caught in the crossfire. Seriously, a bunch of people shooting in a crowded dark movie theater filled with children?

[Captain Corea]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[TheUrbanMyth]

Anyway the link sums up all I have to say on this issue.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMNWK3i8IV4