Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Ulric

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    1,544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Ulric last won the day on July 8 2018

Ulric had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Ulric

  • Rank
    Sasquatch Tank Shaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

857 profile views
  1. Just like the mistake Comey made in regards to Hillary. Fucking corrupt bullshit. America wants to see some heads roll.
  2. At least we don't have a horse in the Senate, just in the House of Representatives.
  3. Wow, the cannot objectively assess the situation and current political climate.
  4. I love the news reports when they arrest someone and find "hundreds of rounds of ammunition". Fucking pikers. But that also shows how little the general public knows about firearms. You can burn through a couple hundred rounds on a very modest trip to the shooting range. If you are really interested and invested in firearms, having 10,000 rounds on hand isn't that unreasonable. Also, if you are serious about training with your firearms, ammunition will be your biggest expense.
  5. Oh, I'm aware of the poll tax and literacy test, and what they were historically used for. In the modern age, and at face value, I think everyone should have to pass a literacy test to vote. If you can't read what you are voting on, you have no business voting. Also, universal suffrage was a mistake. Letting the beneficiaries decide how much money they get to take from the benefactors never ends well. Heinlein had it right in Starship Troopers: you get to vote after you put skin in the game.
  6. Holy shit, I'm just trying to imagine how hard the left would flip out if voting was as involved as buying a machinegun. Somehow, we can't even ask for identification for voting, but now they want to tax the shit out of guns and ammunition.
  7. Oh boy, I'm going to need some popcorn for this one. Don't get me wrong, I do understand somewhat of how people outside the US feel about America's firearm proclivities, but there are some fundamental cultural and legal aspects you are missing out on. So, firearms that are introduced into commerce in the US are required to have a serial number. This number officially isn't tracked in any database, and by law the federal government cannot maintain a list of who owns what. They find other ways around that law, but the amount of paperwork they have to process to pin anyone down to any firearm can be pretty crazy. Much of the firearms sales records in the country are paper records, so when the ATF does a trace on a gun, they have to comb through their paper database, find the store that sold it, and ask them to look through the stores records to find the private buyer, and go from there. A serial number that has been destroyed or obliterated is a big no no, and you cannot have one reissued to you, because that breaks any sorts of traceability. The said, there are legal ways to have an unserialized/unmarked firearm in the US. It is still illegal for felons to be in possession of firearms or ammunition, but there is nothing physically stopping them from making their own firearms. If they can't make them, they will buy them on the black market, or steal them. As far as a national database, an official one will be very unpopular, because there belief in the US gun community is that registration is a necessary step towards total confiscation. Considering that our war for independence started when the British tried to disarm a local militia, confiscation won't go over very well here, and neither will registration. Colorado can't even enforce it's magazine ban and universal background check. Creating incentive structures on purchases through taxation is troublesome, from a legal standpoint. You cannot impose taxes that would have a chilling effect on the free exercise of a protected right, in theory. In practice, they like to pretend that the 2nd amendment, which happens to be pretty fucking clear in it's meaning, is an orphan when it comes to legal protection in the courts. People treat it like an absolute bastard of an amendment, making up complete bullshit to help achieve the interpretation that they want. But anyways, there always be ways around stupid laws and definitions like that. People will make a "hunting" rifle variant to a avoid the tax, but the rifle will be trivial to convert to it's "assault" configuration. As far as getting people to buy "less lethal" weapons, good luck. Firearms exist because they are a tool designed to apply lethal force. Lethality is their raison d'etre. Practicality is determined by other factors, not lethality. Generally, if it is a defensive firearm, you go with the most lethal option that is in your scope of "practical". Everyone thinks there is this massive gun crime problem in the US, which is what people would assume after hearing about these mass shootings. The actual numbers are very different. Firearm related deaths aren't even in the top 10 causes of death in the US, and way less than that if you take out suicides. We have over a hundred million gun owners, with close to five hundred million guns in the US, 46% of the total number of firearms in the world. We have 30,000 gun deaths of all types annually. Suicide is more than half, and if you take it down to just homicide, it's about 12,000 deaths. The kicker is that 8,000 of those are gang related shooting in certain urban areas with handguns. The same urban areas that have the strictest gun control laws in the US, and has been run by the same party for 60 years. The same party that wants more gun control on a national level. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but that's the rough breakdown. So, I don't really see a 0.0024% rate of firearms to homicides to be a problem. If anything, it's pretty fucking amazing. And it's not one firearm per homicide, either, so the actually rate in lower still. Basically, +99.99% of guns in the US will never be used to take a life. Guns are not the problem.
  8. "See something, say something" they say about red flag laws, unless it's the son of some radical islamic imam training kids in the New Mexico to commit school shootings. If that's the case, they will just dismiss the charges and sweep it under the rug.
  9. That's because social science has had to make up their own language because otherwise their cognitive dissonance would kick in way too hard. A great example; they define racism as prejudice plus power. They do this because they needed the word racism to mean something different than what it means to most people while retaining the impact of the original word. In their definition, if you do not have the institutional power to act on racist intentions, then you cannot be racist. The inverse is that if you have the institutional power, anything you do can be racist, even if you do not have any racist intentions or motivations. This definition is completely illogical, and if anything, definitions of words are based entirely on logic. There are two languages being spoken between the left and right in the US; English and newspeak. Most people speak English, and the identity politics obsessed left speaks newspeak. Also, identity politics is just racism with more steps and a fresh coat of paint.
  10. Because the Clinton's or any of the other well connected, highly influential, and mega wealthy people that Jeff might have dirt on don't have any strings they could pull or threats they could make that could have could have possibly gotten someone in there to tie up a loose end that posed an immediate threat to them. So, by pointing out that Trump and Barr are the ones currently in the charge, are you suggesting that they engaged in some foul play to shut Jeff up? Because it sounds like you are suggesting that in such a way that you can later technically deny suggesting it.
  11. Also, can I pull a Sadiq Khan and say that mass shootings are just part of living in a free country. But, as with feminism (and at this point I feel like it's directly tied to 3rd wave feminism), the libs wished for hedonism and another finger on the monkeys paw curled in. When your moral code is "do what feels good", some people who you have pushed into a corner by constantly vilifying them and blaming them for all the world's problems might decide that taking out revenge on society by shooting random people feels really good.
  12. There is a trend in that graph that persists despite the AWB. Try are trying to claim that the AWB saved lives by making the mass shootings less deadly, but the number of mass shootings has increased. Even if they are working on the same definition of "four or more people killed" or whatever it is, the increase in mass shooting deaths is far more attributable to an increase in the number of shootings, not just the lethality. The AWB wouldn't do anything to curb the number of shootings, and very little to curb the lethality if it had any effect at all. The graph above seems to imply that it didn't.
×
×
  • Create New...