1. **ATTENTION ALL DEVILS** If you are still having trouble logging in, (Resetting your password should do "the trick") Optimum Online is blocking JD emails for some reason*, OR if you are not technically capable of doing this; use the "Contact Us" form utilizing your current, valid email address. If your email address is 'lost' to you, simply providing some account details will get us on the correct path together. THERE IS NO NEED TO CREATE SECONDARY ACCOUNTS, STOP BEING SO LAZY! YOU WILL BE BANNED! (Yelling/impolite voice implied there for *maximum effect*)
    Dismiss Notice

Have you read this yet?

Donnie B. Apr 7, 2016

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OnceBitten

    OnceBitten Momma said I'd go blind Brigade Member

    11,879
    2,997
    113
    You're only allowed two arms (and two legs).

    That is all.
     
  2. Donnie B.

    Donnie B. JDBA4L JDBA Official Member

    507
    38
    28
    I'm fucking tired. Good nite.
     
  3. SlightChance

    SlightChance Miller's Maddness JDBA Official Member

    1,815
    157
    0
    I just didn't want to make the car/knife/hammer/attack dog argument again.

    I am focused on criminal acts. Simply possessing a 33 round magazine means nothing. Having those two chemicals means nothing. Using them illegally does and should be punished swiftly and harshly.

    Items are not alive and any wrong doing is solely due to whoever uses them.

    I can guarantee you that a bomb made out of simple, common ingredients has exponentially more destructive potential than any full magazine. In fact you can find tutorials on how to make both items on YouTube and similar mainstream sites.

    I can assure you right now I would rather face a shooter than a bomber. I can fight a shooter; you cannot fight a bomb.

    Should someone not be able to own acetone, hydrogen peroxide and ball bearings because they can be used to harm? Even if the overwhelming majority of possessors would never do so and use them legally?

    Hopefully that makes my line of thought more clear.

    Here is a demonstration on how useful those magazine changes truly are
    [video=youtube;MCSySuemiHU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU[/video]

    Also most mass shooters usually take their own life upon meeting any armed resistance. Someone armed with one 33rd magazine (or even a smaller one) could have easily ended the event before it began.

    I need 33 rounds because there are multiple examples of police officers firing dozens of dozens of bullets at attackers and the officers still taking the perp in alive or were killed themselves despite their best efforts. It is just easier to carry extra rounds in my car with some standard capacity glock 18 magazines. Since I would only use my gun in accordance with my states laws, if I need to reload, I figure why not reload with a larger magazine? They are also a lot of fun to use on the range.

    I suppose with weapons I draw the line at large explosives, chemical weapons, and nukes.

    I see no problem with a law abiding citizen owning a select fire belt fed machine gun (which is still possible, just not as easy as before 1986 Hughes amendment to the NFA) short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, select fire anything, and no restrictions on imported guns. Also rifles with bores over 50 cal should be allowed, as should suppressors. So, I guess all small arms and accessories are A-Okay to me.

    Edited for errors and to embed the video properly
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2016
  4. Rat Finkenstein

    Rat Finkenstein Finkenstein shit kid Brigade Member

    2,865
    628
    123
    Thankfully, we have a second amendment in place protecting our rights (so far) from goosestepping brownshirts like donnyb.
     
  5. Donnie B.

    Donnie B. JDBA4L JDBA Official Member

    507
    38
    28
    You again? Is your only defense to try and make things personal?

    Goosestepping brownshirt? Really? Grow up.
     
  6. Rat Finkenstein

    Rat Finkenstein Finkenstein shit kid Brigade Member

    2,865
    628
    123



    brownshirt is an apt description.
    I guess "useful idiot" or "lick-spittle" are just as accurate.
     
  7. RNST

    RNST Entrusted Devil Super Moderator

    14,388
    1,871
    123
    Ok guys, enough of the hurling insults at each other.

    Step away please.
     
  8. Donnie B.

    Donnie B. JDBA4L JDBA Official Member

    507
    38
    28
    Of course. I think everyone can agree on this.

    We actually agree more than you think.

    How about mandatory background checks and age limits? Should I be able to own a bazooka?

    Only problem is, most of the folks that go postal are law abiding citizens right up until the point they snap.
     
  9. SlightChance

    SlightChance Miller's Maddness JDBA Official Member

    1,815
    157
    0
    Oh I am sure we do agree that nobody wants to see anyone get hurt. That is true of any person with empathy. Even rats doesn't want to see anyone other than the stupid get hurt.

    I just remain unconvinced that the current gun laws truly do anything.

    I personally do not mind the current background check process but that is only because private sales and manufacturing your own firearms is still legal. Though I do not support universal background checks because that is one step towards a more total registration. After registration comes confiscation. It has happened in other countries time and time again.

    Also in my state we have to get a pistol purchase permit/ccw to buy a handgun and I despise this law because it is exactly the same as a poll tax in my eyes. It's roots, like a lot of gun control, is firmly placed in racism and elitism.

    Even if there were no age limit, and I don't understand why 21 for pistols 18 for rifles (from the store,) I don't believe most ffls would sell to a child. I have seen them turn someone down because they weren't acting right. Obviously I don't want uneducated children with guns without supervision. Though I have been shooting guns since the age of 5, and allowed to shoot them alone on the farm since I was about 11. But different children are different.

    Those who want to hurt people have many choices and pathes to do so. Not being able to buy a certain item is a small hindrance when a suitable substitute can be made or found on the black market. This also includes certain websites accessible for anyone who knows what TOR stands for.

    Also, the number of people who snap is a small fraction of the population. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a massshooter. And as I said, most massshooters kill themselves or surrender upon meeting armed resistance. They want soft targets.

    So I think magazine restrictions do little to actually make mass shooters less effective, and do a whole lot to make civilian targets softer. I think that video I posted by that sheriff proves that point quite well.

    As far as I am aware, the amount of crime committed by full auto guns is rather small. Going all the way back to when you could manufacture a new one yourself legally. Full auto fire is also less effective than most people would have you believe. I think the main use is to make people duck. I however, do not have any experience with full auto. Certainly bump fire doesn't count.

    As far as the bazooka thing... idk. They would be very expensive so only the rich could own them, but this country has a history of allowing the rich unfettered access to weapons due to their wealth.

    I would have no problem with the bazooka, but I would like the amount of explosives in the projectile limited. But I think it is a little bit hyperbolic.
     
    droid likes this.
  10. TopHat

    TopHat Drivin' that train..... Brigade Member

    4,531
    815
    113


    Actually, it's the liberals that like to argue the 2nd A. only protects those weapons in existence at the time it was written. That's the argument used by your fellow believers, not mine.

    As Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller decision, "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."


    As far as your other question, Scalia answers that as well in the above quote.
     
  11. taoist

    taoist taoist JDBA Official Member

    1,623
    447
    93
    :devilcorn:
     
  12. El Gringo

    El Gringo dashing devil

    5,546
    1,745
    123
     
  13. lachrymalex

    lachrymalex hellion on point

    2,472
    425
    83
    Fixed it for you. :D
     
    TopHat likes this.
  14. lachrymalex

    lachrymalex hellion on point

    2,472
    425
    83
    You came to the wrong neighborhood to spout that particular bullshit, Donnie B. That's cool, though, you can be wrong all you like, and we won't hold it against you. But you need to understand that your "interpretation" of the 2A is not the interpretation orogisnlly meant by the founding father, nor is it the one decided upon by the Supreme Court, nor is it the one held by a majority of Americans.

    By the way, why would need a fucking balisong for? You can't cut stuff with a regular slipjoint knife? Those things shoukd be regulated more strictly than they are.
     
  15. Donnie B.

    Donnie B. JDBA4L JDBA Official Member

    507
    38
    28
    Nah, I can't carry in public. Just get to play at home.

    And with all due respect to the recently departed, Justice Scalia was not exactly a middle of the road person. He sided with the far right his entire time on the bench. Ever heard this story?

     
  16. Donnie B.

    Donnie B. JDBA4L JDBA Official Member

    507
    38
    28
    Wrong neighborhood? What exactly does that mean? I'm not wrong at all. The fact that there are weapon regulations in place proves it. I'm not losing anything.

    Call me when your Uzi arrives. :bwah:

    Balisongs are a hobby because of the skill set required to flip one. Just learned a new trick today.
     
  17. El Gringo

    El Gringo dashing devil

    5,546
    1,745
    123
    Well Donnie, you shouldn't be allowed to own a balisong ... even if its just for playing around at home. How ya like them apples?

    Is there still a problem with me owning a 30 round magazine... even if its just for playing around at home?
     
  18. Donnie B.

    Donnie B. JDBA4L JDBA Official Member

    507
    38
    28
    You comparing a knife with a 30 round magazine? This is where the gun enthusiasts fail. Next you're going to be telling me that hammers and bats should be illegal.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2016
  19. El Gringo

    El Gringo dashing devil

    5,546
    1,745
    123
    No.. I'm talking about groups of people that think they know whats best for everyone; and want to dictate what everyone else can do.

    Sometimes these same people seem to think that the 'rules' of the game don't apply to them.... cause they just be playin' around. Or, they're a special class above others.... the elite class; and they know what's best for all the little people to keep them safe.

    To me these people are hypocrites... or if they are in a position to pass such laws... well than I refer to them as Fascist.


    And please refrain from name calling.... it's gun enthusiasts, not gun nuts.

    Hammers and bats illegal... no. That vile disease Liberalism... yes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2016
    SlightChance likes this.
  20. El Gringo

    El Gringo dashing devil

    5,546
    1,745
    123
    Lets all wait while Donnie retrieves his thesaurus...:madaddy:
     
    droid likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page