Jump to content

Guard Dog

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Guard Dog

  1. Would threat of imprisonment belong the same lines?


    If a soldier refused to go to a war he thinks is wrong, thusly being in a position to kill people, some being innocent, but those in higher power threatens him with imprisonment which forces him to go and he does in fact kill some innocent people would that make his superiors criminally responsible?


    Actually... no. The rules for conduct for US armed forces personnel are pretty well laid out in the UCMJ, Code of Conduct, etc. Whatever moral problem one may have with the war, it is authorized by congress therefore it IS legal. Therefore ordering a soldier who swore an oath to obey the orders of the president and his superior officers (and is in fact contractually therefore legally obliged to do so) is not a criminal act by any means. And once deployed there are a rigid (too rigid to my thinking) set of rules and laws that tell him exactly how to behave. There is also a well run and oft used process of redress if he is ordered to do something that violates those rules.


    I know where you are coming from Sand. It is up to the individual to decide what they think is right or wrong. But what is legal or illegal in not up to the individual. The long and short of it is, he joined the Army during wartime, he agreed to all the consequences of that. Heck right in the enlistment contract it tells you that combat and loss of life are possibilities. Now the government is trying to compel him to keep up his end of the agreement.

  2. I do agree with Lucius to an extent that a far more important issue is why people own guns and how they use them. Hence my objections to the tone of the original post.


    The number one and two use of firearms in America are hunting and marksmanship (for sport). Maybe not in that order. I own three. A Winchester .300 with which I enjoy both sports. I also own a single shot .20GA that is strictly for home defense (note I said home defense not self defense, I do not carry it with me). And a Colt Navy .36 cal revolver. But that is a genuine antique. It belonged to my great great grandfather and he carried it in the US Civil War. I have it in a display case in my den.


    But the 2nd amendment applies no litmus test as to why a citizen should wish to own a firearm. It simply states their right to do so shall not be infringed.

  3. It costs around 1700$ (at the highest) to get a drivers licence in Denmark, and about 3 months of drivers school. Luckily I passed both theory and driver test in first attempt. :teehee:


    How is this in the US?

    Each state does it's own thing with drivers licenses. In Florida it costs $22 and you need to pass a test when you first get it. Most states are thereabouts except California. I think it's more expenisve there. In Japan my license cost $150 USD. I forgot what the actual yen price was.

  4. As Aram said, it will never happen. No such amendment will ever be carried in the vote even if all 50 states get it on the ballot. Most Americans (I hope) are wary of government and will not cheaply sell their freedoms. Case in point, the 3rd Amendment states:


    "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."


    There is not a more outdated amendment than this but if any group tried to repeal it most people would oppose it I think. You just ask yourself "what if?"

  5. And Guarddog I'm very surprised to hear you taking that line. The amendments are designed to be alterable. They're none of them set in stone. And teh notion that because one on arms is wrong tehy're all wrong. Please?!


    Yes they are designed to be alterable by the Constitutional Amendment process as laid out in Article 5 of the constitution. The problem I have with gun control laws is that to date they have side stepped that and tried to enact their agenda by legislative or judicial fiat. If that happens then the scenario I laid out happens just that way. To enforce such a law they will need to trample those amendments I noted. And if the government is not held to it's own law then it becomes and out of control monster in a BIG hurry.


    The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. All powers and limitations assigned to the US Government as well as most of the personal freedoms enjoyed by US citizens are codified therein. Politically I consider myself a strict constructionist and I recoil when I hear US politicians (like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton who both said it) state that the Constitution is a "living" document that needs to change with the times. Laws need to change with the times, but the rules of governance do not.


    As I said, if all 50 states and 2/3 of the citizens decide the time has come to set the second amendment aside, and DO IT LEGALLY by the amendment process, then that will become the law of the land I will get rid of my firearms then. Until that day "from my cold dead hand".

  6. Well, a sound of a bullet will, for most people, give the initial fight or flight response. The problem is that you would need a individually chambered revolver in order to properly mix bullets and blanks. I don't think a single clip can hold both and it would take too long to change clips if the bugger was going to fight instead of run. I could be mistaken on this. I never dealt with blanks during my military service.

    It can't. Blanks are different size and weight from live rounds. A little OT here but... Don't know if it is still this way but when I was in the USMC, every Thursday was training/field day. No matter what job you did, every Thursday morning you would do some kind of infantry training. Well, one particular time we did M-60E-3 (light 7.62mm machine gun) training. Since you need to be at a range to fire live ammo, we were using blanks. Since I was the duty armorer that month I checked the M-60 and 80 belts of blanks (100 rounds per belt) and took it to the training area and at the end of the day brought it back. Now, I had to clean it. I had no idea blanks made such a bloody MESS. When you fire a round the burned powder is pulled down the barrel by the vacuum created by the projectile leaving. Some of it burns from the friction the projectile exerts on the barrel, a far bit exits the barrel behind the projectile (GSR for you CSI fans). Well, with the blanks, the barrel is stoppered so it goes nowhere. An after 8000 rounds it is caked up and burned in. So, anyway, I cleaned this damned thing for 3 days with a toothbrush, q-tips, pipe cleaners, bore patches,and CLP (the ONLY compound authorized for cleaning a military weapon.) I got no where. I voiced my frustrations many times to the armorer but he just laughed. Finally on day 4 I filled a 5 gallon trash basket with gasoline and hid it in the back of my car. I asked the armorer if I could take it topside to work on it that day (the armory was underground). He agreed. After 30 min in gasoline it was spotless. I rubbed it down with CLP to get rid of the smell and turned it in. Anyway, the armorer looks it over and laughs and said "It took you three days to figure it out. Sometimes you gotta break the rules to get the job done."


    Anyway, blanks just screw up your weapon. Don't use them.

  7. I had a friend who used to say, "live hard, die young, and leave a fond memory". I guess she did all those things. Sort of... I guess... Well.... I don't think I'd want to be remebered for the things she'll be remembered for.

  8. It did not look as though your argument was directed that way.



    Especially considering your current post includes amendments not originally stated, and excludes an amendment originally stated. It certainly looked like you were arguing that if he were to want to get rid of the second amendment, we might as well start tossing out other amendments just because.

    Well, they MIGHT try to ban PAC groups like the NRA so there goes the 1st amendment but you got the idea. As for the first post, I just threw those out off the top of my head, but when you called me on it I really gave it a bit more thought.

  9. Simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him when you don't. A verbal ultimatum would work better than a false start. Most firearms, unlike in the movies, don't fire blanks and bullets interchangeably in any case. Automatics require a blank firing attachment and a weaker action spring if they're going to be operated by gas alone.

    A BFA (Blank Firing Adapter) goes over the end of the barrel and screws a bolt into the muzzle. The idea is, without a projectile to trap the gas from the charge, you need to close the barrel to work the action of the gun. It take a little while to take one on and off, and you really can't do it in the dark. Also, most manufacturers do not make them in any case. They figure if you wanted a toy gun, you wold have bought one.

  10. I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.


    Here we go again.....


    Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it.



    Slippery Slope fallacy.

    Not at all. Shutting down gun maufacturers will be a direct violation of Article 1 sect 8 of the US Constitution. It will also be a violation of the 4th and 9th 10th amendments since they are all non-government entities publicly or privately owned. Conficastion of private property (guns) will be a violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Going "waco" on people who refuse to give up their God-given freedoms is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. Once the government can ignore the Constitution with impunity it will not be worth the paper it's written on.


    The only way you can make this happen legally is a constitutional amendment repealing the second, or amending it to prohibit private ownership. That will happen when pigs grow wings and fly.

  11. I agree with this. According to the imdb, the extended ad on the website featured "members of the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts also registering their disgust at the kiss."


    Would the ad have worked if it was a man and woman accidentally kissing? Of course not, because there is nothing wrong with that.


    The humour is on the level of a teenage boy laughing at something and describing it as "totally gay".


    The fact is there is nothing funny (or in this case attemped funny) that does not offend someone. Make a joke about muslims on TV and three hundred million people want to behead you. Make a joke about about homophobia and GLAAD and it's ilk gets all upset and files protests, threatens boycotts, an on and on and on..... Kind of makes you appreciate Rednecks. Joke about them all you want and they laugh too.


    By the way Kitty, most heterosexual men are just a tiny bit homomphobic. Anyone who says they are not is a liar. It is not right, it is not fair, it is a failing of the human character, but it is true. Might just as well laugh about it.

  12. I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.


    Here we go again.....


    Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

  13. It would be pointless to do so.

    If you are an idealist I would not reccomend involving yourself in politics. The political process will sour you on your country, your countrymen, democracy and make you doubt the worth of all good things. It is like a huge private club where common sense is checked at the door. Nobody cares about actually solving problems, just about being on the right side of them. You will be shocked to hear the condescending and insulting way political insiders think of the average citizen, but after talking to voters you will start to feel the same way. Most of them (politicians) do not have a shred of self respect and most honestly believe we NEED them in office simply because they are so much better than we are. Winning in politics is the equivalent of selling your soul for beans.

  14. The thing I particularly liked with GuardDog's suggestion is that, while a shotgun will likely be lethal force, it was chosen specifically to accent his accuracy (to be honest, I'd be surprised if upon discovering an intruder, that many people would have the mental fortitude to line up their gun and aim properly down the sights, rather than more of a point and shoot), and to limit the chance of accidental injury.

    Plus, chambering a shell with a pump action is a loud and unmistakable sound. Who is going to stick around after hearing that? As much as I am willing and able to use deadly force to defend myself and home, I'd rather an intruder run before it comes to that.


    *edit* But I have 14 dogs, who in their right mind will ever break into my place?

  15. I know it depends on the ammunition.


    I have limited experience firing bullets through walls. Is our skin significantly tougher than drywall, or is it the organs that slow things down sufficiently that would prevent the round from exiting out the other side of the individual and still hitting an innocent bystander?

    What it really comes down to Alan is the weight of the projectile and the degree to which in "mushrooms". For example, full jacketed amunition (which is illegal in the US) does not expand after impact so it does not slow down as much. You are far more likely to have a projectile go in and out of a body if it is full jacketed. Hollow points double in diameter after they impact which of course slows them down a lot but because the projectile is so much larger insude the body than the entry would they do horrible damage. A center mass hit with a hollowpoint is almost invariably fatal. A larger projectile (like a .45 for example) will have almost 70% more mass. The average 9mm is around 160 grains and the .45 is around 245 grains. So a 45 will not cover the range of a 9mm but will do more damage to what it hits and is less likely to do an in-and-out

  16. Furthermore, would your rounds effectively shoot through walls and wound neighbours? Wouldn't they break apart before they could get through the second layer of drywall?

    Depends on the type of round, jacket, projectile, distance to the wall, angle of impact. Hardball (softpoint) projectiles penetrate better than hollow points, but do less damage. But a few sheets of drywall will not stop a 9mm. The exterior wall should. That is why I would prefer a shotgun for home defense.

  17. Besides, night sights also make target shooting a lot easier in the daylight. And target shooting is fun. I know we got off on the whole gun control thing here but the truth is, the number on use of firearms is the totally harmless sport of Marksmanship, which is both relaxing, and enjoyable.

  • Create New...