Since the elites of this country and Davos men of the global elite seem hell-bent on depriving us of our right to keep and bear arms, and due to the recent technological “fab at home” trends, we should discuss home firearm manufacture. Consider these micro-mills and lathes by Taig tools:
They’re large enough to make pistol frames and receiver parts for gas-operated semi-automatic rifles. While barrel construction is still problematic, bolt carrier assemblies and gas-pistons and cylinders could still be constructed and boot-strapped to a barrel used in a bolt-action hunting rifle. Receivers could be made along the lines of Stoner’s AR-18, which were basically stamped sheet metal that covered the action, with the bolt carrier assembly itself traveling along two guide rods.
Design could be further simplified by using tilting block actions or delayed-blowback, which are easier to machine and mate to a hunting barrel than a rotating bolt. We don’t need tack drivers, just guns good enough to shoot MS-13 gangsters, jihadists, and other thugs the government seems intent on enabling.
The only answer is for people to get their heads out of their asses and realize that the only way to ever successfully employ gun control is a police state.
The problem is the police don’t have enough manpower to make it a success and we could not afford enough police. So the only economical answer to that problem is to use the military.
Here is how we can make gun control work. In our major cities we establish fortified checkpoints at regular intervals staffed with troops. Intitially sandbags and armored vehicles could be used. Then as time and money permitted they would replaced them with proper reinforced concrete pillboxes armed with beltfed heavy machine guns. Also the pillboxes need to be spaced close enough that they will have interlocking fields of fire.
The beltfed heavy machine guns are the key to this and here is why. When the people see the machine guns they will feel reassured and safe in a way they never have before because they will know the government is willing to kill as many people as it needs to, to assert it’s authority.
Once the people see the awesome military might of the United States of America dployed in their neighborhood they will be overjoyed to allow the authorities into their homes for regular firearms sweeps. They will feel so reassured they will gladly give up all thier firearms from their assault rifles and assualt pistols to the assault musket and bayonet their great great great great great grandfather illegally used to murder the lawfull authorities enforcing the kings justice during the revolution.
The reason why the people will have no problem with all this police control is because Americas politicians and police are scrupulously honest. Never before in the history of the human race has such a high level of scrupulous honesty and integrity been so universal as it is with Americas politicians and police.
Gun control will make America into a paradise that the founding fathers never could have imagined in those backwards, primitive times when human nature was so completely different than it is today. The founding father never could have imagined the world that exists today. A world where politicians never lie! A world where the authorities never ever do anything corrupt.
So there you are PRCaldude. Once we put an end to your bitter life of clinging to religion and a gun, crime will evaporate and America will become paradise.
Heh. Good one. If you ever read any of those globalist blogs like TDAXP or Thomas PM Barnett, they’d seriously have no problem with what you just wrote. They’d think it was a great idea.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is how we can make gun control work. In our major cities we establish fortified checkpoints at regular intervals staffed with troops. Intitially sandbags and armored vehicles could be used. Then as time and money permitted they would replaced them with proper reinforced concrete pillboxes armed with beltfed heavy machine guns. Also the pillboxes need to be spaced close enough that they will have interlocking fields of fire.
[/quote]
A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Citizens of the Several United States From Being Burdened By Excessive Accumulation of Arms
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is how we can make gun control work. In our major cities we establish fortified checkpoints at regular intervals staffed with troops. Intitially sandbags and armored vehicles could be used. Then as time and money permitted they would replaced them with proper reinforced concrete pillboxes armed with beltfed heavy machine guns. Also the pillboxes need to be spaced close enough that they will have interlocking fields of fire.
A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Citizens of the Several United States From Being Burdened By Excessive Accumulation of Arms
By Sifu Swift[/quote]
Coming from a man of your high intellect I take that as a high complement. Thank you!
I note that America also has the highest rate of death by gun in the world. Surely taking them out of the equation or at least making them hard to get would help this. I dunno, maybe it’s because I’m from NZ, but I’ve never met anyone that owns a gun (outside of a hunting rifle, or BB Gun).
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
If it’s any consolation, Sifu, SCOTUS will release Heller tomorrow at 10:00.
When it rains, it pours. [/quote]
That was interesting listening to the oral arguements. One glaring flaw in Dellingers arguement is his opinion that long rifles are the most appropriate weapon for self defense in the home while handguns are not appropriate for use in the home. In actuality the exact opposite is true.
Home selfdefense is what is known as close quarters battle. The most appropriate guns for CQB are short weapons and shotguns which have a scatter effect. This is why police entry teams use handguns, carbines and shotguns. The short weapons can be manuevered around the confines of a house much more readily than a long rifle. So Dellinger is wrong to assert that long rifles are safer for home defense than handguns.
Another extremely important issue for home defense in a residential area is the safety issue of overpenetration. Because of their shorter barrels and usually lower powered amunition hand guns are much safer to use in a residential area because they are less likely to go through the walls of a house. Long rifles on the other hand are the most dangerous for use in a residential area. Some long rifles can shoot through cinderblock walls.
So Dellinger is completely wrong that long rifles are the most appropriate gun for home defense.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I note that America also has the highest rate of death by gun in the world. Surely taking them out of the equation or at least making them hard to get would help this. I dunno, maybe it’s because I’m from NZ, but I’ve never met anyone that owns a gun (outside of a hunting rifle, or BB Gun).
Difference of culture, I guess.[/quote]
You have been mislead Makavali because that is very wrong. If you check the link you will see that America is way lower in the rate of murders committed with firearms than Brazil or Mexico, their rate is more twice the US rate. I don’t know what the rate is in Iraq but I am sure that not would be a good comparison either.
Besides America is a vast, diverse country, where a few bad areas skew the statistics to look much worse than they are overall. ie Michigan has ten million people with a little less than one million living in the city of Detroit. Detroit is about 10% of Michigans population but accounts for about 2/3 of the murders.
In Detroit people put iron bars and gates up at all the entries into their homes. But if you go out into the rural areas there are still people who don’t bother to lock their doors when they go to bed at night, because they feel that safe.
The cultural difference you speak of Makavali is this. The media in your part of the world works dilligently to give people the impression that the United States is a Detroit the size of Australia.
Also the US is not a homogenous society culturally or racially, there are differences along those lines. So comparing it to smaller countries that have a lot less diversity is not a fair comparison. The US is about the size of Europe. So comparing the US to somewhere like Switzerland while ignoring somewhere like Estonia is not fair. What would be fairer would be comparing Switzerland to Hawaii where there are some similarities.
Last but not least, how do you take guns out of the equation? They have tried that in Britain and failed miserably. Gun murders in the UK have gone up every year since the 1997 gun control act. People in the UK are making their own guns. The only thing the gun control act did is make it more rewarding for criminals to obtain and use guns on law abiding subjects. Because the law abiding subjects are all unarmed.
The only way that gun control can be made to work is to massively expand the police to take up the slack. This is why I wrote what I wrote in my first post to this thread.
Hrm. I guess I stand corrected about the gun stats. But firearms are effectively banned here, and to own a gun license is more trouble than it’s worth. Gun fatalities are few and far between (although I will admit they’ve been on the rise with out gang problem).
Fully automatic weapons are for all intents and purposes illegal here (unless for military use, and even then it’s iffy), what is it like the USA?
You’re right about the media influence on how we see America though. Thankfully, not many people here listen to the media.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I note that America also has the highest rate of death by gun in the world. Surely taking them out of the equation or at least making them hard to get would help this. I dunno, maybe it’s because I’m from NZ, but I’ve never met anyone that owns a gun (outside of a hunting rifle, or BB Gun).
They are not “illegal”. I’m going to plagiarize the “how to” from elsewhere:
“First, no licence is required. You must pay the US Treasury a special $200 per firearm tax. You must have a chief law enforcement officier (CLEO) in your area that will sign off on your form 4 (application to transfer a NFA firearm). Once you find a transferable NFA firearm that you want to purchase, your CLEO will do the first back ground check, take 2 sets of FBI F258 fingerprint cards (with your prints) and sign the rear of the filled out form 4’s (2 required per firearm). You then mail the 2 form 4’s, 2 fingerprint cards and a check to the BATF. The BATF sends the fingerprint cards to the FBI to do a back ground check on you and compare your prints against their data base. The BATF checks their data base to see if the firearm you are purchasing is legal, transferable and owned by the person or firearms dealer (FFL). The whole process takes from 6-12 weeks. Once you are approved, one of the form 4’s will be returned and then you can go and pick up your new or slightly used NFA firearm.”
This is one of those issues where I actually disagree with most liberals. I grew up in a rural area with plenty of guns and no gun violence. I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.
So the criminals still have guns and use them. Got it. Meanwhile, your “democratic” government doesn’t give you the right to defend yourself the way English despots did after the signing of the Magna Carta.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I note that America also has the highest rate of death by gun in the world. Surely taking them out of the equation or at least making them hard to get would help this. I dunno, maybe it’s because I’m from NZ, but I’ve never met anyone that owns a gun (outside of a hunting rifle, or BB Gun).
Difference of culture, I guess.
Would you rather they was pushed out of windows?[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Hrm. I guess I stand corrected about the gun stats. But firearms are effectively banned here, and to own a gun license is more trouble than it’s worth. Gun fatalities are few and far between (although I will admit they’ve been on the rise with out gang problem).
Makavali, you sound like an honest lawabiding man (I could be wrong but not likely) and that is good! You are welcome in civil society because of it. You state that where you live it is more trouble then it is worth to own a firearm because of the laws.
This is the mindset of the law abiding among you, it is not the mindset of the criminal element. There in lies the flaw in your thinking. The law abiding will say, well it is agains the law so I will obey the law. This is what you do and rightly so, this is what supports a civil society.
The criminal will know that if it is against the law and the law abiding obey the law then he can find power over the law abiding by breaking the law. He is already a criminal, he figures he might as well be one with an advantage over those he will prey upon. Does this make sense.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So the criminals still have guns and use them. Got it. Meanwhile, your “democratic” government doesn’t give you the right to defend yourself the way English despots did after the signing of the Magna Carta. [/quote]
Actually, the police have the guns. Even black market guns are ridiculously expensive and hard to procure. The police get taxpayer funded M16’s.