FFS: Incest and Guns, only in Utah
Hey Ma, can I shoot something?
Sure honey, don't shoot your sister as she's your Dad's wife
Incest a game the whole family can play, now with added gun powder and velocity!
Utah is poised to adopt the classic Browning M1911 semi-automatic as its official "state gun", in honour of native John Browning who invented the weapon in 1911. The proposal to add the M1911 to Utah's roster of approved symbols, including state cooking pot and state folk dance*, "breezed" through a House Political …
Don't forgot Utah is the scam central of the USA (Mormon religion and culture is one giant pyramid scheme after all). Also don't forget Utah doesn't have a state lottery (their God doesn't like gambling) but the casinos on the border between Nevada and Utah do very brisk business. Like they say the best way to keep a Mormon out of your beer is to invite another Mormon over (Utah also has state liquor stores that take down your drivers license when you buy liquor, but of course not to check against the church rooster). After 150 years isn't it no longer a cult especially with a church council composed of lawyers and mbas managing the church's $100 billion war chest (Mormon bishops meet with each member every year to go over how much each member gave to the church).
When they asked me to give tithing... a 10% of my income (for the Lawds Grand Works), when I said, "Why yes - that is a splendid idea - I shall give 10% to the homeless shelter down the road, then I shall give 10% to the Salvation Army, and 10% to the local soup kitchen, and 10% to the community education services etc...."
Well you should have seen these pricks on their mission - have a shit-fit and turn purple... because....
What they really meant was "Giving 10% of my income TO THEM, so THEY can "Perform the Lawds Work".....
It was a fun game of "malicious conformity" and giving to the agents of the Lawd so they can perform their duties and WE CAN ALL SHARE in his blessings... (not just them and their heirarchical bullshit).
Mr. Gunn (Fnarr!) of the Gun Violence Prevention Center is a shill for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (Formerly Handgun Control, Inc.)
We don't need more laws to prevent crime- the ones we have are quite enough already.
Besides the 1911 is a marvel of engineering for it's time. I'm sure if Browning had access to modern technology, we'd see some really neat stuff.
John Browing not only created the 1911 pistol which is a true classic, he later went on to modify it as the Browing 'high power' fixing one of the few flaws in the 1911.
Then there is the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) which was supposed to be a 'trench broom' firing .30-06 rounds.
Clyde Barrow sawed down the BAR barrel to make it easier to tote and he used it against the Feds effectively. The BAR was introduced too late to have any impact in WWI. In WWII it was very effective as a squad automatic and was used in generating suppressive fire so that other platoon riflemen could advance and take the enemy out.
So yeah he was a true genius when it came to creating the right gun for the job.
As to the gun laws... remember kiddies, Chicago had/has the strictest gun laws and the highest gun violence because only criminals have guns.
- The 'trench broom' was the Thompson sub machine gun. The BAR is too long for use in confined spaces, and it only has a 20-round magazine.
- The BAR was widely hated by WWII soldiers because of its huge weight, its massive recoil & poor accuracy during automatic fire, its tiny 20-round magazine, and its susceptibility to jamming due to dirt / sand (really handy on D-day and on all those Pacific beach landings).
If you are going to wank yourself stupid thinking about massive weapons, at least get your facts right.
So how many WW2 soldiers did you talk with to get their opinions?
The browning was the SAW used to provide cover fire. A man portable .30-06. Same ammo as the GI toting an M1.
What was their other options? Ma Duce wasn't really man portable. And the .30 cal 'light' machine gun required a crew of at least 2 people to carry plus a third carrying the extra ammo.
As I said the BAR was effective in providing suppressive fire so squads could leap frog and take enemy positions.
Now granted my dad was in the 14th Armored and had a Sherman surrounding him (The brits called it a Tommy Cooker) so he got to see Europe in style...
Oh and yeah I said 'supposed to be a trench broom.' The point was that the war ended before the BAR could get to combat. You'd use the BAR to take out enemy machine gun positions in opposing trenches because it was man portable unlike the heavy machine guns (water cooled) which were fixed positions.
On a side note... The Germans made some pretty nice weapons too. Their machine gun, and the '88s were deadly.
<quote>So how many WW2 soldiers did you talk with to get their opinions?</quote>
I know my history and military tech.
<quote> Now granted my dad was in the 14th Armored and had a Sherman surrounding him (The brits called it a Tommy Cooker) so he got to see Europe in style...</quote>
No, the "Tommy Cooker" what the Germans called the Sherman - because they invariably caught fire after being hit. The British called it the 'Ronson', after the cigarette lighter which had the advertising slogan 'Lights up the first time, everytime!'.
<quote>Oh and yeah I said 'supposed to be a trench broom.' The point was that the war ended before the BAR could get to combat. You'd use the BAR to take out enemy machine gun positions in opposing trenches because it was man portable unlike the heavy machine guns (water cooled) which were fixed positions.</quote>
"Trench broom" is the term that Thompson used to describe his sub machine gun. He designed it to provide soldiers with an easily portable weapon, with a high rate of fire and large ammunition capacity (compared to the bolt-action combat rifles of the day), which would be used to clear an enemy trench once it has been breached. Like the BAR, the Thomson arrived too late in WWI to see service.
The Browning Hi-Power is a double-action 9mm pistol with a double-stack magazine, no grip safety and a different blowback system to the single-action M1911 45ACP single-stack magazine with a grip safety and its famous swivelling-link blowback system. They're two different designs, trading reliability and bullet size in the 1911 for greater magazine capacity and higher accuracy in the Hi-Power.
The few problems with the original Browning M1911 design were fixed by Colt who mass-produced it for the US military as the 1911A1.
The real "trench broom" in WWI was the 1897 Winchester pump-action shotgun, complete in military fitout with a bayonet lug. I heard of a collector using one a while back in a clay-pigeon shoot, blasting away at the clays with the original-issue 18-inch long sword bayonet in place.
Yes, the Hi-Power is a different gun.
I read in one of the gun mags that Browning felt that the 1911 was flawed and went on to create the Hi-Power.
Note: I am a fan of the .45
But living in Chicago, its not really a practical handgun to own. By practical, some would argue that it was an 'offensive' weapon and not a defensive weapon. (Police don't carry .45s). Also the ammo costs more...
The Hi-power was designed in the 1920s in competition with a range of other light 9mm self-loading pistols coming from other manufacturers, adding features as a double-action trigger and John Moses Browning was long dead by the time its design was finalised.
As for defensive/offensive use of handguns the limitations tend to be on physical size and weight for everyday carry. The 1911 is large and heavy for a handgun but its smaller brother, the Colt Commander is within the boundaries for civilian carry and is likewise chambered for the .45ACP round. There are of course a whole range of other calibres the 1911 design has been modified to take, down to .22LR. I don't know the biggest round the Hi-power and derivatives can cope with but most DA double-stack semi-auto designs tend to top out at .40S&W.
"As to the gun laws... remember kiddies, Chicago had/has the strictest gun laws and the highest gun violence because only criminals have guns."
Absolutely wrong, clueless crap. Seriously, since you are obviously an uber-ignorant loudmouth, how about hitting at least Wikipedia to check your stupid mantra first?
As for the facts:
1. strictest and BETS gun laws in effect are New York's, no question, everybody & their dog knows this sans idiots and stupid NRA-shills like Gumby, of course.
2. Chicago is a decent place but it's far from being the strictest - you cannot buy automatic weapons, you need a license (cannot be retarded or convicted) and have to register it and until last year they refused to register handguns but it's been thrown out by the SC.
3. State with highest gun violence is BY FAR Louisiana, with Illionois not even being TOP5..
4. Chicago's murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in 35 years, partially due to the ~8k guns they have confisctaed on the streets: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-03/news/ct-met-chicago-crime-statistics-20110103_1_superintendent-jody-weis-chicago-homicides-violent-crimes
Stop spewing your dumb NRA-propaganda bS, please.
"Absolutely wrong, clueless crap. Seriously, since you are obviously an uber-ignorant loudmouth, how about hitting at least Wikipedia to check your stupid mantra first?"
So that's were you get your facts?
How about actually living in Chicago and having gone through the process of getting a gun ownership permit? Then there's the bit about registering your fire arms...
But lets correct your wikipedia knowledge.
Lets start off with the fact that the STATE OF ILLINOIS does not allow conceal carry period.
The only other state the doesn't allow conceal carry is WISCONSIN. So if the STATE OF NEW YORK allows conceal carry. That simple fact alone makes IL, not just Chicago stricter than NY City.
For your reference... http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
Note that the two states in BLACK do not allow CONCEAL CARRY. Since you may or may not be familiar with CHICAGO, it is in the state of IL. (NO CONCEAL CARRY)
Now lets go to the cities that banned handguns outright.
Washington DC and Chicago.
The Washington DC ban was overturned and this gave way to the lawsuit filed by McDonald against the city of Chicago. (McDonald v. Chicago) Since you like wikipedia... you can see it here:
Now NY City never banned handguns. Did they? Didn't think so.
Are there gun dealers/stores within NY?
Wait, why bother to leave your chair? Let Google do the walking for you...
Oh look! There are gun stores in NY.
How about Chicago?
THERE ARE NO GUN STORES INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF CHICAGO.
Gee, now why is that?
Oh sure you can say that its because the city's ban was overturned 7 months ago and give it time...
Unfortunately you'd be wrong. There's already a lawsuit against the city because they refused a suburban gun store from opening up a shop within city limits. (You do realize that you need to get city approval for your business storefront, right?) No fire arms instructors in the City, and the only CMP groups are JROTC. (You do know what JROTC is right? or CMP?)
And since you mentioned it... here's the process you have to go through to get a gun permit. Now required for *all* firearms and not just handguns....
1) You are required to go to a certified firearms instructor and take a 4-5 hour course on gun safety. (This does include range time.) This course costs $100.00 or more.
2) You have to then fill out your application on a special yellow card. (You can't use the form on the internet and print it off.) You need the form, and two passport sized photos. The non-refundable fee for an application is $100.00
3) You have to take it to a specific location so you can get processed. (Digital finger and palm prints.) This location is out of the way, and its different from the listed site on the police web site. Luckily its a 2 block walk off a stop on the Orange Line. And the office is only open during the day M-F so you have to take off from work to go.
In about a week or so, you get the bottom third of the card in the mail. Its approximately 3.75" by 7.5". (Mine is the one numbered XXXXX)
Do you happen to have one?
Didn't think so.
Do you even know what the form looks like to register your fire arm(s)?
Didn't think so.
Now lets look at NY's permits:
Please focus your attention on 'Types of licenses'.
Wow. So many to chose from.
They offer only a 'premise' license. Oh and BTW, your garage isn't part of your premise. (Attached or detached garages.) Outside of that... you can't get any other type of license.
So much for your malarky that NY City has more strict gun laws on the books.
So,,, you were saying?
(Uber loudmouth who doesn't know what he's talking about?...)
In my previous post (assuming the mods like it.)
I point out your obvious ignorance of Chicago's gun laws and permit requirements, the state's law, and of course what NYC permits are available.
But you also some factual mistakes.
1) See my previous post which identifies the actual laws...
(Do you live in NYC and own a gun? Clearly you don't live in Chicago...)
2) I'm not sure what point you're tying to make. There are Federal requirements to own an automatic weapon along with some non-transferable tax stamps on Class 3 type of firearms.
Oh and BTW, try getting an FFL in the city of Chicago. (You do know what an FFL is, right?)
3) Chicago isn't a State, although there are many who feel that Chicao should secede from the state of IL. I'm not sure what value you have in trying to compare the state of LA to a city. Oh and yeah I think LA still has IL beat when it comes to corrupt politicians, although IL is trying real hard to play catch up.... ;-)
4) Where did you pull that fact out?
I've actually watched the marches and protests by neighborhood community leaders along with Jessie and Father Michael Pfleger. Oh and even that laughable protest against DSA arms... but I digress. Murders maybe down. Gun violence has been on a rise. But I take it you don't read either the Sun Times or Tribune (As in Chicago Tribune).
I think that about covers it.
So please get your facts straight.
Mine's the coat next to Levente's coat, and helmet he's supposed to wear when he goes out in public and rides that short bus to school. ;-)
Wow, I knew that states had state flowers and state birds and state mottoes and such like, but state cooking vessels and state weapons? That's a new one for me, and I actually live in one of those states (though not the one referenced in this article, thankfully). The gun toters have been spinning that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line for a long time, and it still doesn't wash with me. People with access to guns are a lot more successful at killing large numbers of other people than people without access to guns are.
Think over in the middle east, where explosives seem to be the massacre device of choice. Remove guns, and homicidal maniacs will simply switch to something else. If not an up-close-and-personal knifing rampage, than a car (or truck) packed with homemade explosives (and since most of the recipes--especially black powder--are common knowledge, good luck getting them out of everyone's hands).
So it's alright to sell guns then. Sorry, this doesn't wash.
Any simpleton can currently buy a gun with great ease. Mixing explosives would likely end in him blowing himself up.
Cutting access to guns isn't going to result in *more* killings! Compare the US to the rest of the (more civilised) world.
The gun massacres of the last twenty years pale in comparison to two or three (IIRC Natural Born) Americans with a truck, access to fertilizer, and enough knowledge on how to improvise ANFO. Plus, like I said, Black Powder has been around for ages and involves just three common ingredients.
Put it this way. Would a homicidal maniac be less inclined to go on a rampage if he/she had less access to firearms? Or rather, does the prevalence of firearms simply make it the implement of choice?
In the UK, a significant percentage of the people that own guns (as opposed to merely handling them as part of their duties) have killed someone, or fired them in anger with the intent to kill someone during a criminal act.
In the US I'd hazard that the percentage of legal gun owners who have killed or attempted to kill someone is very, very low. I'd also guess that most gun crime is committed by people who are already legally barred from owning a weapon, given the highest rates of gun death occur in Washington DC, New York State and California where the gun restrictions are toughest.
See, gun crime in the US follows that sort of pattern. Areas where guns are illegal or highly restricted tend to have the highest rates of gun crime in particular, and the highest rates of crime in general. Where the gun laws are most liberal, crime in general falls dramatically.
This image of the US as a place filled with gun-toting nutcases is largely a creation of the media, which wants to sell stuff and trades on stereotype in order to do so. It's no more fair than their image of us as a land of fruity, plummy toffs in bowler hats and three-piece suits sipping tea and eating crumpets with the vicar in a country cottage whilst cockneys dance and sing about chimneys on the roof.
>This image of the US as a place filled with gun-toting nutcases is largely a creation of the media
No it is not. I lived in Texas for a few months and you can NEVER get used to ordinary citizens walking around with hand guns strapped to their hips. Walking into a bar and seeing the "Check your guns and knives" signs.
The concept that gun crime is inverse to the level of gun law liberalism does not appear to be valid for Texas, it has very liberal gun laws and guns were everywhere, on a quiet evening you could even hear gun fire. The evening news reports always used to report the daily count of the number of gunshot victims.
LA was another place that loved it's guns, traveling in a workmates care and being told that the hand gun was in the glove compartment. Again there was the daily gunshot victim count.
Iowa was one other place in the states where I lived and there didn't appear to be any gun related problems. From what I could see the main reason for that was they were from a totally different ethnic mix.
"In the UK, a significant percentage of the people that own guns (as opposed to merely handling them as part of their duties) have killed someone, or fired them in anger with the intent to kill someone during a criminal act."
Is that true? A significant percentage? What percentage? Cite a reference - its a big assertion after all.
Or did you just pull that little nugget straight out of your arse and hope that no-one would question what is quite plainly complete crap?
That is all, I won't bother with the rest of your post, its drivel and doesn't warrant any attention.
Statistics indicate that a significant percentage of people invent statistics to prove their point :P
Please provide such statistics, origin and measures... I simply don't believe you, and I do believe you are making it up, (the statistics), unless the "statistics" include criminals having unlawful access to guns which would be cheating on the numbers, as criminals will get guns no matter how strict laws are, (take japan as an example) .
That UK problem has a root cause:
Back in the day, an armed villain could be reasoned with along the lines of: "Give it up, you haven't hurt anyone yet, don't make it worse for yourself."
These days, they might as well just try and shoot their way out of trouble as they're in deep shit for having the gun in the first place, whether they use it or not. Thus we now have police in flak vests and armed response units toting carbines instead of an unarmed rozzer in his shirtsleeves with a megaphone. For some reason we seem to have forgotten that the best way to avoid innocents being caught in the crossfire is not to have any bloody crossfire in the first place.
Worse still, the cachet of serious crime around owning one has made the gun the "must have" accessory for any little scrote who wants to look big to his peers. Not so long ago, a scrote with a gun was a scrote with a gun. These days he's an instant outlaw gangsta motherfucker.......
so the quote;
But I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britain,
Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you've got a population
roughly the size
of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do
you think it's
because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because
those guys have
gun control laws.
is not correct
(dont worry im sure he never watched the west wing)
Rather than a Browning, maybe they should adopt Jordan Brown's gun, a hunting model specially developed for children, with which it is alleged to have enabled him, at 11 years old, to kill his father's pregnant fiancée. Very possibly he is to be tried as an adult and would face an automatic life sentence with no option for parole (only Somalia has similar legal provision for lifetime incarceration of children with no parole option).
This is a tragedy and a mixed up set of society values which is beyond rational comprehension.
>Very possibly he is to be tried as an adult and would face an automatic life sentence with no option for parole.
Something about the word "automatic"... there's a certain... je ne sais quoi about it, don't you think?
Quote du jour (from the same The Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/25/us-boy-accused-murder-appeals):
"But that still leaves about 2,400 prisoners facing permanent imprisonment for homicides committed when they were children."
Time frame? The Guardian doesn't specify. I wonder, though, how things are going - relatively - in every other country on the planet (except Somalia - which is arguably not a country anymore anyway, really).
I didn't buy my gun to kill people. I bought it because it goes "BOOM" with a very satisfying kick. More importantly, it goes "BOOM" with a satisfying kick and then makes holes in things. Usually things like paper targets, clay pots, or other legitimate targets at the gun range. To put it more simply:
Firing off a gun in a safe, controlled environment whilst respecting the appropriate safety rules and bearing in mind you are surrounded by other people firing guns is actually a fantastic way to relieve stress. It isn't the only one; I find my fiancée’s fish tank to be very relaxing. I enjoy a nice glass of The Glenrothes and a fine Cuban cigar. A round of football or even writing.
Different stressors seem to elicit the desire to relieve the stress in different ways. When I bought my firearms, I bought them based on their promise to help allieviate stress via cathartic “BOOM” and associated clay pot destruction.
Killing people though? Was never advertised that I recall. Might be useful for such a thing if necessary, but I can only see that being required when the US invades. For now though, my firearms are definitely fit for the advertised purpose. ;)
I tend to like my 'beanfield' rifle which goes a very loud boom and knocks down a varmit at long distances. Just need to put only 1 shot down field to take care of business.
When I shoot paper, I prefer my .22 pistol or my friend's 9mm.
But I agree that shooting paper targets is a very good stress reducer.
Note: There are only two states that does not have any conceal carry laws. (IL and WI) The rest have some sort of laws on the books.
Also note: most of the gun violence is done with illegal guns, not those owned by licensed gun owners.
To forget that they spent 300+ years raping and pillaging the bulk of the world, shipping their criminals half way around the world, sacking Washington DC in 1812... then in the 20th century calling on the US to help them defeat Germany twice.
Let us forget that Cunliffe wrote "The Nation Takes Shape". Granted its been 30 years since I read this, but one of the basic premises that America became its own nation rather than transplanted Europeans because of the frontier. Its because of the frontier that the gun had become an intrinsic part of the American culture. (Hunting and survival on the frontier.) At this time, what was the gun to Europeans? Nothing more than a way to subjugate and dominate others. How many Brits died in the 1800's in pointless wars w France? (See Napoleonic Wars 200 years ago)
Yeah, lets forget one's history.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but what the hell.
You want to talk abotu history?
OK, who was it who raped and pillaged andmasacred the Native Americans?
Ah yes, the good old USA!
You want to talk about subjugation and dominance on pointless wars?
Excellent idea, let's start with the US-lead illegal invasion of Iraq, shall we?
Speak up, troll, you've gone quiet...
No nation has a history of which it can be fully proud, that is true.
Butsome DO have the ability to be proud of how they are seeking to improve things today.
Whereas others, dear troll, simply continue to wor5ship machines designed solely to kill & maim, whilst continuing to push their political will on other nations via illegal invasions.
you were saying, oh trolling one?
Naw we just shot all of the buffalo to reduce their food supply. Slowly starving them to death.
(Yes its the Americans who created the 'borg concept.)
It was really all of those immigrants escaping oppressive regimes in Europe at the time that kept coming to the US and homesteading further West.
Then you had the clash between the Indian nations and the American population who were now homesteading on what was once Indian land. So again, blame Europeans.
And don't feel too bad for those Indians. They got the last laugh... just look at Foxwood
"Its because of the frontier that the gun had become an intrinsic part of the American culture. "
This nonsense is often repeated - but the idea that guns were part of the American culture didn't appear until the 20th century (and the second half, in particular).
Not least because, until the 20th century, most Americans couldn't possibly afford a weapon. Cowboys didn't carry weapons (not least because most of them were black or hispanic, and the white owners would have been apopleptic at such a prospect).
'Intrinsic to American culture' is a myth, partly due to mass production of weapons, and the 'culture' of Hollywood.
'He's right. People kill people. To be more specific, people with guns kill people.'
As do people with knives, people with swords, people with bombs, people with broken bottles, people with metal bars, people with cars, trucks, planes, hands, feet, planks of wood and countless other 'murder' weapons.
Ban them all!
Which is why civilised countries have controls on what you can carry around with you. Take the UK where guns, knives, swords, metal bars planks of wood etc (offensive weapons) have restrictions on when you can carry them - 1.4 murders per 100,000 population.
Compare this to the USA where the restrictions on carrying these things are generally far lower - 5.8 murders per 100,000 population. These numbers kind of speak for themselves really.
Regards you inclusion of hands, feet, cars etc.: you are either a very clever subversive or a kool-aid drinking person propping up the lower end of the IQ bell curve.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019