Premier Rock Forum

Rotten Tanx wrote:Is any of this neccesary though? I mean, maybe it is, I dont know, but it doesnt seem it. Ok, maybe shotguns for bears. But do people need to hunt nowadays?

I don't like guns. I've shot them, even, and I just don't like the damn things. Probably because of freaks like this who take such fucking joy in pointing out that they have them. Ooooh, is that an attempt to intimidate? Golly! (I swear I saw my fascist dickhead cousin in the http://www.werenotsorry.com website.)

Anyway, yes - people do still hunt to get through the year. In rural PA (where I lived for a while), there are tons of families who rely on their couple of freezers of deer meat to get through the winter. Most hunters do not come from this group, but some do. While I can't personally abide hunting, it is a vital activity for some people.

In the urban areas, the poor live on subsidized grocery store food. In the rural areas, some rely on hunting to supplement their food supply.

About the assault weapons ban - I think the application of the law should be discussed separately from the intent of the law. Yes, it was flawed and better guidelines would be much more appropriate - no doubt. But, is the flaw:

in saying some weaponry is over-the-top and unjustifiable
-or-
just in the poor execution of the law?

I'm not for unilaterally banning guns (mostly for the rural vs. urban thing - Dean spoke on this Pre-Shrub Round Two). I have no problem with outlawing frigging tommy guns or their like, though.

SixOhSix47 wrote:I have no problem with outlawing frigging tommy guns or their like, though.

While we're at it, let's do something about speakeasies, flapper girls and this infernal jazz music.

SixOhSix47 wrote: I have no problem with outlawing frigging tommy guns or their like, though.

If you mean machine guns, then they have been outlawed for a long time already, and no new laws are necessary to keep it so. If you mean anything that looks like a tommy gun, I have to ask, why is the appearance of the gun so important? A weapon that does all the same things but doesn't look like that -- that would be okay?

That's my problem with the "assault weapons" laws. They're like Sex In The City -- the only things that matter are the brand name and the styling.

No no - it's not the look, it should be the capability of the weapon. I was being glib (tommy gun) because I don't know specific terminology related to guns - obviously and admittedly.

I'm asking for that terminology.

Regarding "assault weapons", instead of listing specific criteria or functional capabilities, the law listed particular model names. What is the common characteristic or functional capability (if any) that they were trying to limit?

For example, bullet proof vest piercing ability is related to the type of bullet. There were attempts to ban those bullets. What characteristics were the legislators attempting to capture by labelling some guns as assault weapons? Was that valid?

What was the bill trying to limit - even if it did fail to practically do so?

Angry_Dragon wrote:I think guns are evil. I have friends with guns and I give them shit for it eventhough that new Old Navy commercial made me want to kill people. Guns are horrible. I've had friends shot to death because people were fucked up and didn't know any better. I've had friends who were so self-loathing that they killed themselves with their dad's gun because they hated their lives. One of my best friend's brothers was killed because he confronted a friend about drugs. I will rephrase my initial statement. Guns aren't evil, most people who own them are.

Man we have a few of the same friends that own guns and I happen to think that they are pretty decent guys.

In terms of irritation factor, please Rank the following items:

The combined musical output of Billy Joel, The Eagles and Rush.
The substitution of the letter "z" for the letter "s" (e.g., "anywayz").
The use of the term "law thingy" to describe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

This Rank is very hard for me.

Go stick your head up a dead bears bum.

SixOhSix47 wrote:What characteristics were the legislators attempting to capture by labelling some guns as assault weapons? Was that valid?

What was the bill trying to limit - even if it did fail to practically do so?

Scary-looking weapons is what they were after. When there is a news report of a crazy bankrobbing involving "military-style assault weapons," then there will naturally be an outcry against those "assault weapons." Unfortunately, the term is meaningless. It is a marketing term arms manufacturers made-up for weapons they wanted to sell to the military that were lighter and less prone to mechanical failure than WWI- and WWII-era weapons.

These weapons, the M16 and Uzi machine pistol particularly, have a distinctive look, coming from a skeleton stock and handle, armatures for scope- and bayonette-mounting and plastic parts.

In their civilian form (the AR15, for example) these weapons are no more "deadly" than a hunting rifle of the same capabilities, but they look scary and incongruous. So they were after scary-looking weapons, but they couldn't say that, or people would laugh.

Rotten Tanx wrote:Go stick your head up a dead bears (sic) bum.

This quote would have been much funnier if it would have read: "Go stick your head up a dead bearz bum."

steve wrote:I have had a gun pointed at me in anger twice, both times in the city of Chicago. Once by a cop, but I don't really blame him. This, despite living in a hunting culture and being surrounded by guns and shooters my whole life outside the city.

What was the reason for having the cop point a gun at you if you dont mind me asking?

I was helping a band load out from Lounge Axe (I may have even been in the band, I don't remember), and Corey's motorcycle made a loud-ass backfire at the end of the alley. Suddenly there were cops all over the alley looking for gunplay, and they had their pieces out. An over-reaction, but understandble.