Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

NRA vs Videogames?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 252 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:13:46 PM PST
Anthony says:
its extremely doubtful that the u.s. government would ever actually USE a nuke. especially on its own populace.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:14:16 PM PST
I dunno, "insurgents" can do some pretty hefty damage.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:16:10 PM PST
Really? What would you do, oh brave leader of the suicide squad. He's just being honest. The only deterrent would be collateral damage, and if they were to decide to carpet bomb areas of resistance, what would you suggest? Hide in a bunker? Sorry, they can reach those by adjusting the timer of detonation.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:17:46 PM PST
Sport target shooting is a legitimate reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:19:30 PM PST
And keep in mind that this is much easier if the attackers don't care about things like civilian casualties.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:22:21 PM PST
If I'm doing it for sport, I'll take my km77 to the range at 500-750M and have some fun. I don't understand the fun of firing on burst. Plus, that gets crazy expensive quick.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:22:25 PM PST
Carlito says:
Hey, Quitter #2, I just want to know IF something happens and that's a big IF I can say I went fighting for what was right, not rolling over on my hands and knees taking it. If that's for you, then so be it, but if rights are being trampled Syria style then I'd rather, at the end of the day, know I fought for something instead of quitting, quitter.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:22:34 PM PST
Why is a bayonet mount a bad thing? I mean, in terms of "things that make your gun possibly more effective in a wider range of scenarios" I would argue that a rail system is much worse.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:22:53 PM PST
Well, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (since expired) did ban weapons based on their appearance, not lethality.

I mean, it literally banned semi-automatic rifles for having two of the following: A folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or muzzle that could accommodate grenades.

There's a reason that the expiration of the 1994 AWB didn't do much, it's that it didn't do very much in the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:23:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 1:28:12 PM PST
I just said "bayonet mount" because it's one of the things that specifically identified you as an "Assault Weapon" in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Which was stupid.

If someone is threatening you and they have a knife and a gun, it's not usually the knife you're worried about.

I mean, sure the person with the bayonet is going to be incrementally more threatening to you, but not meaningfully so. The guy with the flash suppressor (also singled out in the 1994 AWB) is only really more dangerous to you if a) it's dark and b) he has to shoot repeatedly in a short period of time. I'm personally much more worried about that first shot than the fifth or sixth.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:24:35 PM PST
Fully automatic is not three round burst. Firing a machine gun on full auto and an M4 on three round burst are two entirely different things.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:26:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 1:27:36 PM PST
That's funny. I've done my time in, and you're talking like this. I'll reserve my comments to those who have a modicum of experience and training, and let you go on about how we're just quitters.

@Nate: I know, but it's an easy way of differentiating(sp?).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:27:00 PM PST
Well in an age where the military is investing heavily in automated weapons systems and robots and taking the human element out of warfare and enforcement. I'm less and less inclined to give up my right to own a gun. I don't even own a gun, but I want the right.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:28:31 PM PST
Okay, but I'm saying that sport shooting is a fine reason to own an AR.

And burst is only useful when you need to use all the rounds at the range so you do a SPENDEX. Also only feasible when the taxpayers paid for your bullets. :-)

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 1:29:49 PM PST
I do personally think it would be a good idea to ban caseless ammunition for civilian use, since it really only justifies its existence from a "military logistics" perspective. There's no practical and defensible reason for a civilian to use caseless ammunition.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:30:02 PM PST
Carlito says:
It's funny how someone that did there time (and somehow knows my life up to this point) would just roll over then, specifically you, not those in the branch you served in because I'm assuming that's what you meant, quitter.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:30:06 PM PST
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:31:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 3:18:50 PM PST
Voice of god says:
My beef isn't with killing one person. It's with killing a whole bunch of people. And several of those add-ons do indeed make killing sprees easier.

You seem to assume I'm okay with semi-automatic weapons. I'm not. I've already said that I'd prefer it if we were like Japan and you could only get a weapon for hunting or sport shooting, which is the only legitimate reason I see to own a gun. I personally don't like any gun designed strictly for killing people. That includes semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

However, I can understand it if people feel the need to own a gun for self-defense. If they want to own a handgun for that reason, it's a position I can understand and a compromise I can live with. However, I don't see the need for rifles designed for killing people -- if you're picking someone off at 70 yards, they're not an imminent threat.

My personal preferences and definitions for what's acceptable aren't really the same as what I think is a realistic policy. A reinstatement of the assault weapons ban we've already passed before seems like something reasonable people should agree on, because it clearly does more good than harm. I'd like restrictions with more teeth in them, but it's a good place to start.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:31:47 PM PST
Oh I know it was part of the ban. I was questioning it, not you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:33:22 PM PST
Among other things, I find it incredibly hilarious that Natural Born Killers is claimed to promote "life as a joke and murder as a way of life". Clearly Wayne LaPierre never even bothered to understand what the film was about.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:34:01 PM PST
What on earth could you have against semi-automatic weapons?

I mean, I my beef against semi-automatic weapons is that I shoot left-handed, and I don't like hot casings being ejected in my face, and left-handed ones are rare/expensive. But I don't think that's a good basis for policy.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:34:09 PM PST
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I was curious if the Japanese suicide rate would raise even higher if guns were more readily available there.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:35:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 1:36:48 PM PST
The 1994 AWB is a classic example of "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" legislation, so something is done, just nothing meaningfully or effective.

This is the worst kind of lawmaking. You identify a problem, do something pointless, then sit on your laurels feeling like you actually accomplished something.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:36:56 PM PST
If someone is coming for you, 70 yards is too close for comfort to me. I don't keep my 2 rifles out of my safe, but I have them for when I want them. What harm does it do if I spend some money on a brick and go off to the range for fun as long as I am responsible there? It's the people who aren't responsible and/or know anything about gun safety that are the ones to worry about.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:39:46 PM PST
Mallrat says:
I'm going to start blaming my lousy driving on the fact I play Mario Kart.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  252
Initial post:  Dec 21, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions