Agreed on the suggestion that using other people's personal names in a public forum 'smacks of "cliqueiness"'. How is anyone else to understand who the comment is directed to, without having to uncertainly rely on whatever they can construct from the context?
For those who do/wish to use their real name, having it in your username is somewhat of a boon, because it circumvents this little snafu.
A good sniper would only need one shot, and if the first shot is the only shot, the sound levels won't matter much for you.
For the same reasons as the other guy said about machine guns, I don't care too much about silencers. The average fellah, in the average situation isn't too hindered by having to buy a set of muffs for his head.
But.. everyone who is anti-selfdefense is anti-selfdefense, and only some people who are anti-firearms are anti-selfdefense..
So why aren't you targeting the group of people who all should have guilt about their beliefs, instead of just a subset of that group who feel that firearms are bad?
Because the article you mentioned has to do with firearms?
Does it really have more to do with firearms than self-defense?
None of the arguments you made had anything to do with their judicial system. They were all strictly about the 10th article and the idea that the Mexican citizen was somehow being deprived of a weapon.
This, so far, is the only valid concern I might share with you.
Of course, Americans also have laws concerning the carrying of concealed weapons (which is a rather broad term, if you don't have a permit) and the transportation of weapons (which, if you don't have a CCW means that may transport your own weapon in your own personal car, and you may only do so if said weapon is locked in an area separate from the ammunition for it.)
But, then again, you're also suggesting that people are more interested in obeying the law than defending themselves against terrorism which is ignored by their government, which I think in itself is morally wrong, and the preference to disregard the law in said circumstances should be upheld by reason in a Just court system.
You're suggesting that a person who owns semi-auto rifles capable of firing more powerful ammunition than NATO standards, who is legally endowed to possess as many as 10 firearms, who can own shotguns, handguns, and rifles, even if less than 12ga/.30cal is incapable of defending themselves due to firearm control?!
Ludicrous!
I support gun ownership! No problem! And sure, I might agree that some of the restrictions in place here would be better off gone...
But if you think that this sensational story about people forced to leave their homes because of a lack of self-defense is true, you're just plain wrong.
The weapons provided to them by law are very lethal, and very capable of self-defense.
They might not be testosterone pumping, hair-growing 'big man' weapons, but they are far closer to that concept than they are to pop revolvers and spud guns.
Very serious, very heinous crimes have been committed using the kinds of weapons they are permitted to have.
Lone gunmen have killed 20+ people at a time with that kind of weaponry.
You are not even remotely rectified in suggesting that their plight is the result of gun control laws.
Again, even if it is 'heavily amended', it grants them the right to own non-military firearms. Similar to American law. Just because a law has been amended doesn't mean it has been revoked..
The article specifically states that semi automatic rifles under .30 caliber are acceptable.
Weapon ownership permits, up to 10 per person, are both available and easy to get.
Citizens CAN and DO own guns, although they are limited to .38 caliber or smaller, as indicated, in all lawfulness, by their constitution that enables the government to determine what should/should not be allowed for private use.
They may also own semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
Is a .223 Semi-Auto Bushmaster (the most popular selling hunting rifle in America) not a weapon worth defending oneself with?
The M16 rifle commonly deployed by the US military is a NATO standard, and uses 5.56MM (aprox .21 cal) rounds.
Several version of the M16, while having three-round-burst options, do not include fully-automatic firing modes, as they are determined to essentially be wasteful in most circumstances.
I guess what I'm saying is...
According to the reference you provided, they have the right to own some serious weapons, those weapons and their proper permits aren't hard to get, and any single person can actually own a pretty decent number of said weapons.
So, what's the deal with 'giving up their rights', again?
The notion of the threat of retaliation as a form of defense is more a political concept than an actual form of defense.
Take any extremist religions who are willing to sacrifice themselves, for example.
Lets say one of these groups build a nuclear arsenal. The threat of retaliation is no good here, because if they decide we're Evil Scum, and they want to nuke us, they all think they're going to a happy afterlife when they get smoked in return.
A much more realistic, militant concept of defense (as it should be, properly) is 'how do we shoot down incoming missles?!'
The more important defense is our capability of stopping a physical attack with a physical action.
Nukes aren't going to defend us- They're an offensive weapon.
Rail gun technology that can shoot down missiles, halfway across the ocean, in seconds...
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had enough firepower to kill 80,000,000 people in under 30 minutes.
When Reagan became president, there were three options for him to strike against if a nuclear attack was ever detected:
1) Strike Soviet/Ally Military targets 2) Strike Soviet/Ally Industrial targets 3) Both
Reagan enabled his presidency a fourth option
4) Strike Soviet/Ally political targets
The idea was, if you could behead the beast, you didn't have to blow the hell out of millions of innocent people.
When the Kremlin found out that they could be independently targeted, they developed a computer system, known as the 'Dead Hand' which was capable, if all of the top political and military leaders were killed, of launching the entire Soviet nuclear armament against the USA.
A concept that pervaded the Cold War- 'Mutually Assured Destruction', that is, if one side were to attack, the retaliatory attack from the opposing side would lead to both their demises.
The Soviets, in this method, ensured that even if they were wiped out, they WOULD have their retaliation.
I ultimately decided to stay because I contributed to the poetry forum, and I found that when I sat down to write something on CS, I seriously consider the nature of the message I wanted to present, because it is a public forum- Something that doesn't happen when I write, say, alone in the bedroom.
Since then, I've found a lot of good conversation to be had, and some decent people to have met. :)
Barrellofart Forum Posts (761)
and some 
?
RE: Name protocol in the forums.
Agreed on the suggestion that using other people's personal names in a public forum 'smacks of "cliqueiness"'. How is anyone else to understand who the comment is directed to, without having to uncertainly rely on whatever they can construct from the context?For those who do/wish to use their real name, having it in your username is somewhat of a boon, because it circumvents this little snafu.