Page 3 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

07 May 2011, 5:13 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Though your question is silly 'keet, you're backing into one of the philosophical areas of the gun debate that I find interesting; at what point does an amalgamation of mechanical parts become a deadly weapon requiring regulation? It's particularly odd when you get into the highly regulated NFA category of firearms, where the ATF has deemed such things as a shoelace tied in a particular way to constitute "machine gun parts" requiring copious documentation and risking serious jail time for simple possession. "Constructive possession" is another dubious legal concept in this area, where having the components necessary to manufacture an illegal device is considered de facto possession of said device for charging purposes. This is like saying that because you have a gas can, beer bottles and shop rags in your garage, the government can charge you with possession to molotov cocktails, a destructive device.

A catapult would not fall under ATF jurisdiction since it's source of power is purely mechanical and not chemical, but I would not by surprised to see them regulated in some areas. California for example bans such terrifying implements as "ninja" stars, blowguns and nunchucks (sic), to name just a few of the more questionable prohibitions in that state. It's always the blowguns that kill me, I mean really; who commits a crime with a blowgun? More importantly to me; what legislator is so worried about blowgun crime that he put time and effort into getting them banned?
You've heard of Carolyn McCarthy right? This level of stupidity shouldn't surprise you at all.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

07 May 2011, 5:36 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
A catapult would not fall under ATF jurisdiction since it's source of power is purely mechanical and not chemical, but I would not by surprised to see them regulated in some areas. California for example bans such terrifying implements as "ninja" stars, blowguns and nunchucks (sic), to name just a few of the more questionable prohibitions in that state. It's always the blowguns that kill me, I mean really; who commits a crime with a blowgun? More importantly to me; what legislator is so worried about blowgun crime that he put time and effort into getting them banned?


I'm not quite sure what philosophical area I'm backing into, but I'd say the same type of legislator who is worried about crime potentially being committed with blowguns would probably be the same type of legislator who would be worried about catapults, swords, pocket knifes, sharp sticks and thin pieces of paper. They'd be the kind of person who would seek to 'protect' everyone from themselves until the coddle them to death.

There's a groups of usual suspects in California that tries to pull stupid crap like this a couple times a legislative year. Now they've banned trans fats (I never realized how good they made donuts taste until it wasn't in them anymore) and other unhealthy foods.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

07 May 2011, 6:14 pm

John_Browning wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
A catapult would not fall under ATF jurisdiction since it's source of power is purely mechanical and not chemical, but I would not by surprised to see them regulated in some areas. California for example bans such terrifying implements as "ninja" stars, blowguns and nunchucks (sic), to name just a few of the more questionable prohibitions in that state. It's always the blowguns that kill me, I mean really; who commits a crime with a blowgun? More importantly to me; what legislator is so worried about blowgun crime that he put time and effort into getting them banned?


I'm not quite sure what philosophical area I'm backing into, but I'd say the same type of legislator who is worried about crime potentially being committed with blowguns would probably be the same type of legislator who would be worried about catapults, swords, pocket knifes, sharp sticks and thin pieces of paper. They'd be the kind of person who would seek to 'protect' everyone from themselves until the coddle them to death.

There's a groups of usual suspects in California that tries to pull stupid crap like this a couple times a legislative year. Now they've banned trans fats (I never realized how good they made donuts taste until it wasn't in them anymore) and other unhealthy foods.
Makes me think it's nothing more than a government scheme to eliminate competitition.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

07 May 2011, 6:26 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Though your question is silly 'keet, you're backing into one of the philosophical areas of the gun debate that I find interesting; at what point does an amalgamation of mechanical parts become a deadly weapon requiring regulation? It's particularly odd when you get into the highly regulated NFA category of firearms, where the ATF has deemed such things as a shoelace tied in a particular way to constitute "machine gun parts" requiring copious documentation and risking serious jail time for simple possession. "Constructive possession" is another dubious legal concept in this area, where having the components necessary to manufacture an illegal device is considered de facto possession of said device for charging purposes. This is like saying that because you have a gas can, beer bottles and shop rags in your garage, the government can charge you with possession to molotov cocktails, a destructive device.

A catapult would not fall under ATF jurisdiction since it's source of power is purely mechanical and not chemical, but I would not by surprised to see them regulated in some areas. California for example bans such terrifying implements as "ninja" stars, blowguns and nunchucks (sic), to name just a few of the more questionable prohibitions in that state. It's always the blowguns that kill me, I mean really; who commits a crime with a blowgun? More importantly to me; what legislator is so worried about blowgun crime that he put time and effort into getting them banned?
You've heard of Carolyn McCarthy right? This level of stupidity shouldn't surprise you at all.

If she is going to have such a big mouth, she really needs to get informed on the topic. Jokes about her "I think it's the shoulder thing that goes up" remark are probably never going to die off.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

07 May 2011, 7:29 pm

wait 'til you taste a doughnut cooked in lard. IIrc, the ban doesn't touch it.
Lard also makes the best pie crusts and tamales.

...though that probably wasn't the intent of the bill's writers.



HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 963
Location: United States

07 May 2011, 7:43 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
If youre gonna get Medeaval then falconry is the way to go..


My friend needed a signature to start a sign-up sheet and he told me to put anything down. I wrote Falconry.

Another friend had an entire website devoted to messing with people on AOL IM and whenever someone asked what is major was, he said Falconry. In an urban center of a major American city.

I know a guy who hypothesized if all guns were taken away there would be crossbow gangs (drive-by crossbow need a good shot, or a slow car going at 5 mph). Then rappers can then brag how tough they were by surviving a crossbow attack.


_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 May 2011, 5:20 pm

quo me docuor pater:

Quote:
cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt.
---Carolus Hestoniensis in vicem M. Antonius dixit


Note to self: I'm surprised no one posted this little gem in this thread before...


_________________
--James


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 May 2011, 5:56 pm

visagrunt wrote:
quo me docuor pater:

Quote:
cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt.
---Carolus Hestoniensis in vicem M. Antonius dixit


Note to self: I'm surprised no one posted this little gem in this thread before...


"When catapults are outlawed, then only the outlaws will have catapults." :?:



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

09 May 2011, 11:51 pm

John_Browning wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Though your question is silly 'keet, you're backing into one of the philosophical areas of the gun debate that I find interesting; at what point does an amalgamation of mechanical parts become a deadly weapon requiring regulation? It's particularly odd when you get into the highly regulated NFA category of firearms, where the ATF has deemed such things as a shoelace tied in a particular way to constitute "machine gun parts" requiring copious documentation and risking serious jail time for simple possession. "Constructive possession" is another dubious legal concept in this area, where having the components necessary to manufacture an illegal device is considered de facto possession of said device for charging purposes. This is like saying that because you have a gas can, beer bottles and shop rags in your garage, the government can charge you with possession to molotov cocktails, a destructive device.

A catapult would not fall under ATF jurisdiction since it's source of power is purely mechanical and not chemical, but I would not by surprised to see them regulated in some areas. California for example bans such terrifying implements as "ninja" stars, blowguns and nunchucks (sic), to name just a few of the more questionable prohibitions in that state. It's always the blowguns that kill me, I mean really; who commits a crime with a blowgun? More importantly to me; what legislator is so worried about blowgun crime that he put time and effort into getting them banned?
You've heard of Carolyn McCarthy right? This level of stupidity shouldn't surprise you at all.

If she is going to have such a big mouth, she really needs to get informed on the topic. Jokes about her "I think it's the shoulder thing that goes up" remark are probably never going to die off.
She's never gonna live the "Incendiary = Heat seeking" one down either. It's sad that a quick wikipedia/google search was all it would've took for her not to make an ass of herself. She could've at least been more convincing. Like how the Brady Campaign talks about how barrel shrouds allow you to empty more clips from hips than you otherwise would.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

10 May 2011, 12:31 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Though your question is silly 'keet, you're backing into one of the philosophical areas of the gun debate that I find interesting; at what point does an amalgamation of mechanical parts become a deadly weapon requiring regulation? It's particularly odd when you get into the highly regulated NFA category of firearms, where the ATF has deemed such things as a shoelace tied in a particular way to constitute "machine gun parts" requiring copious documentation and risking serious jail time for simple possession. "Constructive possession" is another dubious legal concept in this area, where having the components necessary to manufacture an illegal device is considered de facto possession of said device for charging purposes. This is like saying that because you have a gas can, beer bottles and shop rags in your garage, the government can charge you with possession to molotov cocktails, a destructive device.

A catapult would not fall under ATF jurisdiction since it's source of power is purely mechanical and not chemical, but I would not by surprised to see them regulated in some areas. California for example bans such terrifying implements as "ninja" stars, blowguns and nunchucks (sic), to name just a few of the more questionable prohibitions in that state. It's always the blowguns that kill me, I mean really; who commits a crime with a blowgun? More importantly to me; what legislator is so worried about blowgun crime that he put time and effort into getting them banned?
You've heard of Carolyn McCarthy right? This level of stupidity shouldn't surprise you at all.

If she is going to have such a big mouth, she really needs to get informed on the topic. Jokes about her "I think it's the shoulder thing that goes up" remark are probably never going to die off.
She's never gonna live the "Incendiary = Heat seeking" one down either. It's sad that a quick wikipedia/google search was all it would've took for her not to make an ass of herself. She could've at least been more convincing. Like how the Brady Campaign talks about how barrel shrouds allow you to empty more clips from hips than you otherwise would.

And if they ever shot a 3 gun match instead of watching Rambo movies, they'd know that an active shooter being incompetent enough to shoot from the hip is a good thing because even in the movies, shooting from the hip still results in very few hits even with a belt fed machine gun. That and a barrel shroud doesn't do anything to help or hinder an active shooter. They show total ignorance of how to work a firearm and what each part does. They lack the competency that even a 7 year old has by the time they are allowed to fire their first shot.

Image


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2011, 12:49 am

The only thing which really matters to such anti-gun politicians is whether or not they think what they say sounds good to the people who vote for them. Having actual knowledge of a subject is secondary to making themselves sound good to their target audience. If their audience were more knowledgeable, they might consider doing some actual research, like perhaps from a pocket dictionary... seriously, someone actually thought that the word incendiary is equivalent to the term "heat seeking"? I can see people confusing my usage of the word century in the opening post for the division of time rather than a Roman military division, but seriously what kind of idiot would be lacking enough knowledge of English to even think that incendiary, meaning able to set things on fire, would be the same as heat seeking, which is exactly as it sounds - namely aim correcting towards sources of infrared light.... - ... how can it be that these elected officials, who think they are so "elite", can seriously be so dumb?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

10 May 2011, 1:08 am

It's often considered an odd pairing, I think, leftist beliefs and gun-loving coinciding in one individual.

Nevertheless, I've been wanting a surface-to-air missile launcher ever since I saw one CSI Miami.

And the catapult thread got me fantasizing about taking a true-to-scale and fully-functioning medieval catapult recreation out into a ginormous field, and painting it pink with watermelon guts.

:D


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

10 May 2011, 1:10 am

Bethie wrote:
It's often considered an odd pairing, I think, leftist beliefs and gun-loving coinciding in one individual.

Nevertheless, I've been wanting a surface-to-air missile launcher ever since I saw one CSI Miami.

And the catapult thread got me fantasizing about taking a true-to-scale and fully-functioning medieval catapult recreation out into a ginormous field, and painting it pink with watermelon guts.

:D


YOU ARE A MONSTER! :P


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

10 May 2011, 3:12 am

Bethie wrote:
It's often considered an odd pairing, I think, leftist beliefs and gun-loving coinciding in one individual.

Nevertheless, I've been wanting a surface-to-air missile launcher ever since I saw one CSI Miami.

And the catapult thread got me fantasizing about taking a true-to-scale and fully-functioning medieval catapult recreation out into a ginormous field, and painting it pink with watermelon guts.

:D

There are liberal gun owners, and many of them don't want "reasonable restrictions" either. In California, the Pink Pistols are a significant part of the 2A lobby- especially since many of them live in areas with liberal anti-gun politicians. There are also gun owners from various political views who are devout pacifists or have strong feelings about animal rights who just like target practice.

As for the catapult, there are competitions for that and I'd like to try that someday too!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

10 May 2011, 8:01 am

I vaguely recall a comedic sketch about making hand-guns illegal but making field artillery legal, because its quite hard to do a drive-by with a field gun.

It seems unlikely that anyone could build and wield medieval siege artillery with criminal intent...if only because there are far more simple solutions available. A mortar from a drainpipe vs an Onager? I know which one will fit in the back of a transit van, and it isn't the second.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]