Which makes me say...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/opinion/walmart-decides-to-drop-sale-of-ar-15-assault-rifles.html

Wait...Wal-Mart sells AR-15's??

What the...?

America...fuck yeah!

They did?

Oh well, it won't have any effect.

The real gun violence problems are never addressed.

>>1
I'm surprised that you were surprised by that. It's Wal-Mart...in America.

>>3
Ha! Good point.

Yeah, my thoughts too!

But since I'm an American, with a desperate need for an automatic weapon (why? because fuck you that's why! 'Merca!!!) I'm gonna go scoop one up before they stop selling them.

Well, if I lived in heavily liberal neighborhoods, I would get one, too.

It only makes sense.

But, thank God, I don't.

So I don't even own a gun.

I live in Oklahoma, all these liberal pussies are too left wing for me. I might have to double wield some AR's in my neighborhood.

>>5
The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.

>>8
They are if you "amend" the firing pin.

Still not sold as an automatic weapon.

The AR-15 isn't an AR-15 anymore with the amendation. Then it's closer to an M-16.

Besides that, tampering with the firing mechanism is illegal, you know . . .

How's your parallel parking class coming along, by the way?

Still have never seen that, but I can picture it now. Whatever.

You were still 100% wrong. Even worse that you unilaterally forced yourself into a conversation claiming you were right, when in fact, you only made yourself look like a jackass.

Blah Blah Blah Fifi Blah Blah...

Yfffi.

Right, because that's what makes a difference in this conversation.

>>15
You were the one that brought it up, son, not me. Are you saying one should just disregard every word you say as "not important"?

Words have meanings. Precision, you dumbass.

No, I'm saying that practically there's no difference between semi-automatic and automatic. No one needs either one, ever.

I grew up shooting guns, and even though the gun debate is oversimplified by everyone on both sides, only a true moron would defend the dangers put into our society by the proliferation of these types of weapons. Most pistols and rifles I'm okay with, but there's no need for these weapons to exist outside of the military.

Why are you arguing with SFBE sock #3258? I know Sean can't help himself but I thought you knew better by now.

>>18
We all have moments of weakness when we're bored at work. Thank you for slapping me out of it.

Sure I can. What's difficult is keeping up with the SFBE level of name changes.

No, I'm saying that practically there's no difference between semi-automatic and automatic. No one needs either one, ever.

Okay, I can respect that sentiment.

Most pistols and rifles I'm okay with, but there's no need for these weapons to exist outside of the military.

Huh. So, in other words, these weapons are okay, just as long as they're monopolized. Interesting.

>>22
No, they're okay in the hands of professionals trained to use them in a wartime setting, not laying around in a house for some mentally unstable nutjob wanting to shoot a bunch of kids (and being able to kill many of them thanks to automatic firing, yay!!

A monopoly nonetheless. And proper firearm handling does not require government issuing. Let's deal first-and-foremost with the unstable nutjob in the house before moving on to inanimate objects.

How about we do both, why isn't that on the table? Especially since there are plenty of nutjobs who aren't certifiably crazy. You're absolutely right that proper firearm handling doesn't require government issuing, but would you trust everyone you know to handle a firearm with care and respect and safety? I feel like I've had too much life experience to ever think that. That's why despite growing up around guns and shooting guns since I was a kid, I'm firmly for more and better gun control.

You're absolutely right that proper firearm handling doesn't require government issuing, but would you trust everyone you know to handle a firearm with care and respect and safety?

I reckon I don't trust everyone on anything: firearms, knives, chainsaws, pit bulls, rocks, automobiles... bad language etc.

Doesn't give me the right to dictate the liberty of others on such matters.

So you think everything should be legal to everyone all the time?

Everything? I'm less concerned with things than I am actions.

You said

Doesn't give me the right to dictate the liberty of others on such matters.

So what gives you the right to dictate anything to anyone? Seems like you're trying to take a "I'm just a single person, let's follow the law" approach instead of looking at why and how the laws are what they are and whether or not they need to be changed. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Allow me to reiterate: Room for doubt or mistrust doesn't give anyone, single or party, the right to dictate the liberties of others.

Do you think all drugs should be legal?

Yes. As near as I can tell.

I agree. I've always thought that all drugs should be legal to anyone over sixteen.

Just figure the meth heads can take each other out, and anyone who gets in the way, with their AR-15's and then we're all better off?

What defines someone's liberty? Or are you suggesting anarchy is the way to go?

Just figure the meth heads can take each other out, and anyone who gets in the way, with their AR-15's and then we're all better off?

Let's just pretend for the moment this isn't a blatant strawman; How do you figure I would ever condone such a thing?

What defines someone's liberty?

Simple: the freedom to act, and the freedom from the actions of others.

How do you figure I would ever condone such a thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

Simple: the freedom to act, and the freedom from the actions of others.

An oversimplification, of course. We are all acted upon by others, whether governmental or otherwise. I'm asking for your concrete, real world, applicable definition of liberty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JokeOkay

so it's a joke. And not an argument.

An oversimplification, of course. We are all acted upon by others, whether governmental or otherwise. I'm asking for your concrete, real world, applicable definition of liberty.

I'm not sure what kind of lame-ass Appeal to Tradition, Inertia or No Alternative fait accompli (or all the above) that's supposed to be, but it's plainly bankrupt. Real world? Any other definition of "liberty" is not a definition at all, just a copout excuse for some to obtain/maintain power and enforce others.

There was a time when the abolition of slavery was, ya know, just gee-gosh-darn hard and impractical and not realistic.

looking at why and how the laws are what they are and whether or not they need to be changed.

I agree with you on this point. This is more of a practical issue than a purely ideological one.

I reckon I don't trust everyone on anything: firearms, knives, chainsaws, pit bulls, rocks, automobiles... bad language etc.

Doesn't give me the right to dictate the liberty of others on such matters.

That's more of an ideological argument. A statement of faith. But the nut-cutting lies with more practical matters.

How much of a practical difference do gun control laws make?

1) For instance, converting semi-automatic rifles into fully-automatic is relatively simple yet highly illegal. How many people actually refrain from doing this in the real world out of fear/respect of this law? Do you know?

2) Fully automatic weapons have been banned for private sale since at least 1994 (as far as I know). How many average "Joe Suburbs" type citizens know where to safely purchase a black-market automatic weapon? (Safely, meaning, there are a lot of ATF stings going on at gun shows.) I myself know how to purchase fully automatic weapons, but then again, I know a lot about shady things like that. (don't mean to brag.) It's not as simple as just looking in the yellow pages under "Arms dealer" or walking into the ghetto chiming "Psst . . . anyone wanna sell me a MAC10? M-60, perhaps? I got the cash right here!"

In those matters, you have to know the right people. Same thing with buying large quantities of cocaine, or knowing how to launder money.

Such things are simply beyond the ken and ability of your average American. So bottom line: I'd say the ban on fully automatic firearms does have great practical effect.

That's more of an ideological argument. A statement of faith.

Ideological? No. Philosophical? Yes. It's a statement of First Principles.

I respect your ideals, but there are no principles in politics. Gun regulation is a political issue.

Monopoly means something different from what you think it means. Unless you resent that the military are equipped to shoot more people quicker than a civillian can.

And if an administration is elected to regulate and control gun ownership then government is exactly what's required to do that. Called: Democracy.

Monopoly means something different from what you think it means.

I can't imagine what other definitions apply here.

And if an administration is elected to regulate and control gun ownership then government is exactly what's required to do that. Called: Democracy.

It's also called: mob rule.

I can't imagine what other definitions apply here.

There's your problem. You've imagined your first definition, which is wrong. Try looking things up, checking them out before wrongly imagining stuff.

Mob rule is when an unlawful mob takes things into their own hands. Not when lawfully elected officials and law agents rightfully enforce the public mandate given to them. Or did you just imagine democracy meant something else?

There's your problem. You've imagined your first definition, which is wrong. Try looking things up, checking them out before wrongly imagining stuff.

Or you could've simply argued how exactly the term "monopoly" doesn't apply in the first place, instead of asserting as much. The most direct meaning: the exclusive possession or control of something. I'm curious how this doesn't apply to a government amassing and controlling a certain firearm type.

Mob rule is when an unlawful mob takes things into their own hands. Not when lawfully elected officials and law agents rightfully enforce the public mandate given to them.

Uh-huh. That's a nice way of dressing up the former as the latter with middle-men procedures. Mob rule is a majority enforcing upon the minority (directly or indirectly) its demands via the initiation of force. The fact such may be deemed "lawful" in the process does not automatically make it any less immoral.

The government don't supply guns to the public. You're a bit silly aren't you. It's like saying the government has a monopoly on the possession of laws and courts have the control of supply of justice. Tut-Tut. I'll get my own laws and my daddy to provide the justice I want.

If you can't learn the democratic process, get out of the country.

The government don't supply guns to the public.

In essence, yes they do (or they just sell them to third-world militias, but I digress...) Regardless, the word "monopoly" does not definitionally require an economic context.

Monopoly is having only one producer of a good and have nothing to do about the buyers of that good I think.

A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).

Maybe you mean a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market form in which only one buyer interfaces with many would-be sellers of a particular product.

That would be the case of one buyer (government) buying weapon from multiple sellers.

There you go with this "automatic" thing again!

AR-15s are semi-automatic, not fully-automatic. You can't legally buy fully-automatic weapons, even in the US. The AR-15 can conceivably be used for sporting purposes, but absolutely nobody needs an Uzi or an M2 Browning unless they're going to kill lots of people.

And yes, there IS a big difference between them. With fully-automatic rifles, you just hold down the trigger and it fires continuously. It's INCREDIBLY easy to kill large numbers of people. With semi-automatic rifles, you at least have to point and shoot at each person and can't just wave your gun around, killing people in all directions.

Also, since I have an hour-long posting quota, I'm gonna use this post to tell anon that he's painfully unfunny and that he really, REALLY needs to stop trying to be /lounge/'s Stephen Colbert. anon, you were actually LESS annoying back when you acted like SFBE.

The implication then is that semi-automatic weapons are only attractive to patient gun enthusiasts who would give victims a sporting chance of escape while they are targeted individually, which is supposedly necessary to kill people without automatic firing. The potentially mass murdering nut without an automatic will just bite his lip and rue his intended victim's good fortune that he doesn't have time or or stamina to pull a trigger more than once.

And by the same token, any person who buys a semi-auto just naturally abhors shooting more than one person a day. So they are no threat. Otherwise they'd buy an auto. Yeah, right.

You're much more likely to be killed by cigarettes than by AR-15s, but that sure as hell doesn't stop Wal-Mart from selling those. The same goes for alcohol.

Yeah, because allowing someone to damage their own health with cigarettes or booze is the same as allowing someone to potentially be murdered. Good analogy.

Sadly true - this is a black day for Freedom-Loving Americans. But it turns out it's not as bad as it seems - WalMart will, in fact, sell you a Peacekeeping JesusLoving AR-15 if you can get a signed affidavit from your local sheriff proving that you intend it ONLY for the purpose of ridding the world of

* abortion doctors

* Mooslims

* homosexualists

* that b**** of an ex-wife who takes all your money

Do you know why, though?

Not because there is no need of an average citizen needing one. They are stopping because sales are down.

After scrolling through these threads I am beginning to think 50% of the posters truly think these are automatic weapons - that will jump off the wall to kill people of their own will. And yeah, apparently justice belongs to the government as well (as opposite to its job being servitude to it).

Yeah, brah, like I said above, this whole "story" seems a bit cockamamie.

I had no idea they sold assault rifles, but considering the type of people that shop there, that shouldn't be much of a surprise.

My local Walmart doesn't let you in the door unless you're already packing. It's safer if everybody is armed.

On reading through the thread I take it AR-15's are not the age restricted movies category between PG-13 and R.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg

You can walk in a super market and buy this off the rack? The mind boggles.

I wished i could walk into Asda and but AR-15, sadly i can't.