Another start to the school year, another shooting; nothing will change

#927
#927
KB5252 said:
As do handguns and shotguns. It's not capable of serving a military combat function, similar to the F-16 we were just discussing.
Click to expand...
I'm not really wanting to get into the minutia.
Been down that road multiple times in the PF.
 
#928
#928
KB5252 said:
By that standard the AR 15 is fine then.
Click to expand...
Pffft. There were rifles you could have delivered to your door by the mailman that as a matter of firing function (detachable magazine fed semi-auto) did everything the AR did 50yrs before Eugene Stoner's brainchild was born.
 
#931
#931
luthervol said:
I'm not really wanting to get into the minutia.
Been down that road multiple times in the PF.
Click to expand...
But the devil is always on the details.

There must be dialogue in genuine attempt to flesh it out. That's the only way we truly get to the root of the question. Decisions aren't typically best made at 1,000 feet.

I understand but the above is why I was asking.
 
#932
#932
hog88 said:
😂 Then so does a demilitarized fighter jet.
Click to expand...
Not really.
I guess the question to ask would be - is it still useable as a means of killing? (within a "range" of its original design)
If so, then it hasn't been demilitarized.
If not, then we're good.
 
#933
#933
KB5252 said:
But the devil is always on the details.

There must be dialogue in genuine attempt to flesh it out. That's the only way we truly get to the root of the question. Decisions aren't typically best made at 1,000 feet.

I understand but the above is why I was asking.
Click to expand...
I attempted to debate in good faith. Impossible in the PF.

But I agree 100%. It's in the details and requires dialogue and compromise.
 
#934
#934
luthervol said:
Not really.
I guess the question to ask would be - is it still useable as a means of killing? (within a "range" of its original design)
If so, then it hasn't been demilitarized.
If not, then we're good.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous argument. Any firearm or aircraft is "usable as a means of killing". Remember 9/11/01?
 
#935
#935
luthervol said:
Our first gun law was in 1619 (over 400 years ago) so I guess it's been an issue.

They rightfully made machine guns illegal.


I also believe the difference between 350 million and 20 million people is significant.
Click to expand...
Its been an issue since before we were a country, but the founders still made sure to enshrine gun ownership as a right? To me that doesn't sound like they thought it was the gun that was an issue.

and I am not sure you really want to reference the 1619 gun law. that was entirely race based, to make sure blacks and other freed slaves couldn't own guns. so it wasn't even a safety issue, it was purely racist. so you are off to a grand start with your justifications.

1934 was an issue with mobsters and organized crime, just like to day. just like today, taking guns away from civilians in 1934 did little to nothing to stop organized crime from having or using guns. and what's funny is the only reason the mob/organized crime grew to such a problem, was because of government over reach banning something. doesn't bode well for what happens if guns are banned.

they didn't make machine guns illegal. it is still perfectly legal to own one. anyone who owned a machine didn't have to change much of anything.

really not sure what your last point has to deal with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, MemphisVol77, JustFunnN'Orange and 1 other person
#936
#936
kiddiedoc said:
So basically, those who can't afford "gun insurance" (a higher proportion being minorities/disadvantaged populations) should have their right to bear arms infringed?

Remember, these are the same people who think it's wrong to require voter ID, so that their right to vote isn't affected.

GTFO.
Click to expand...
pole taxes are good?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#938
#938
All I know is nothing will be done to prevent the next one or the next one or the next one or........

Pitiful part is nobody is even asking the question
 
#939
#939
luthervol said:
The concept of the general populace being armed equally with today's military is beyond insane.

Anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic.

The founding fathers would be in complete agreement.
Click to expand...
based on what?

even when people rebelled directly against them, they didn't take their guns away, or restrict gun ownership in the country.
 
#940
#940
luthervol said:
I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.
Click to expand...
lol.

a tyrannical government kills millions. even in our nation we have seen this with disarmed populations.
 
#941
#941
luthervol said:
lol.....I think a nuke is more of a weapon of way than a knife. Maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure every branch of the military still issues shotguns, handguns, and knives as standard weapons of war. at the very least they are equally weapons of war.

and that's without getting into any sort of technicality that would render an AR-15 not a weapon of war.
 
#944
#944
luthervol said:
Not really.
I guess the question to ask would be - is it still useable as a means of killing? (within a "range" of its original design)
If so, then it hasn't been demilitarized.
If not, then we're good.
Click to expand...
you remember 9/11 right? you don't need weapons on a plane to kill.
I haven't looked specifically into the F-16s, but when I was looking at demilled F-14s they very much could still be used to kill. you would basically just have to "reload" it.

de-milling typically just removes the pieces of software, and not too much of the hardware beyond the actual weapons. like on the throttle there is still a trigger that if depressed would activate one of the various payload mechanisms, like a bomb drop, a missile "launcher", or triggers the gun. all of that hardware is still in place. civilians just don't have the parts that would 1:1 replace the military stuff that was removed.

now when it gets to the more modern fighters that are much more digital than analog & mechanical F-16, and those were de-milled you would have something much more in line with what you are thinking.

but your fears of mass destruction at the hands of civilian owned F-16s is very much a reality we live in, and it hasn't been a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and hog88
#946
#946
C-south said:
Wonder what will drive premiums? LG is already advocating a 300% premium from the value of the gun. I bet if you live in areas with high crime rates your premium goes up, therefore making it more difficult for you to afford to defend yourself.
Click to expand...
If you are law abiding it will. If you are a gun thug, it won't make any difference. Or maybe it will... like gun free zones
 
#950
#950
hog88 said:
Ok Luther, what exactly is removed from a fighter plane when it is demilitarized?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but from the article you posted.....
"In the strictest sense, a civilian pilot can't buy a fighter jet, because it's against the law to own one still capable of combat operations. However, you can buy a jet that used to be a fighter and is now enjoying its retirement."



So if you modify it to be capable of combat operations, it is no longer legal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top