With the traffic to work, I couldn’t say I’d turn down a piece of mechanized artillery. If only for the intimidation factor…
Screw it, give me a tank with a good set of tracks, and I’ll happily roll over and bash out of the way the 30 miles of gridlock to work. Even if I only top out at 30mph it’d still be an improvement.
Excellent for defensive driving, but the fuel economy SUCKS which limits the range. I’d suggest it as a second choice.
Or you could fill the vehicle with additional fuel storage compartments inside. Then you could drive to the pump and ask for “full tank, please”! 
For that, however, I’d recommend first conquering some smaller country that by chance happens to be sitting on your oil.
Treads are included, but no fuel.
If you send in 200,000 coupons you can get it upgraded to one of these:
Similar enough. Same majority language; both ex-British colonies with a strong pioneer history; both have minority cultures and groups that were harmed in that colonisation and their disadvantage persists to the present day; Gini indices in the ballpark: 36 (NZ) vs US (40); high levels of drug use and drug crime in both nations; culturally similar enough that we could relocate to each others’ countries and cope with minimal social adjustment; both watching the same (violent, US) films and TV programmes; both have a strong hunting and (animal) shooting tradition …
But, oh, you got me — the US is much more densely populated at 34 per km^2 versus NZ’s 17 per km^2 … and utterly awash with firearms with your violent crime stats off the charts. Meanwhile in NZ we can’t get at guns easily and can list all the gun massacres that have happened here on one wikipedia page (that has to go back to 1772 to make up a whole page).
You do realize that the second fucking amendment is a
We’ve changed the constitution plenty of times because of things the founding fathers never thought of or imagined. We can do it again.
See, the level of stockpiling that some people do should be enough to get on a terror watch list. But I guess they don’t have furiner-sounding names.
Yea, because you know, criminals are all about having insurance coverage. 
WUT?
Irrelevant. Its not a question of whether or not we can change the Constitution, its whether or not we should.
You do realize that the 1st fucking amendment is a
FUCKING AMENDMENT!
We’ve changed the constitution plenty of times because of things the
founding fathers never thought of or imagined. We can do it again.
Need I remind you that the 1st amendment was penned during the era of the manual printing press? The founding fathers could not have have conceived of such thing as the internet or satellite telecommunications.
I posted this cute vid to mock the perennial gun control nut that feels compelled to vomit the tired, banal argument, yet again, that the 2nd amendment was written in the era of muzzle loaded weapons.
The 2nd amendment was not penned so we can hunt and collect antique weapons.
Have a ‘like’ for creative use of social cuing.
While what you say is true, I’d like to point out that saying words at you can’t kill you. Even if I’m very loud, and I can’t directly kill you with words no matter what I say, no matter how many copies I make.
Shooting you with 30 7.62x51mm rounds will pretty much certainly kill you though. Directly. Even if it’s an accident. Way to bring in an inapt comparison.
I belive you, that you did not understand. i will pretend you asked clearly. I meant that ammuntion -can- be well stored.
But then it’s in storage, and not killing people. It’s also military, which isn’t the population we’re even discussing.
I guess my point is that your objection to my point makes not sufficient sense to me as to detract, or add, to my point.
Yeah, but you have to understand that in Australia, owning a gun is not a right - in fact, the whole concept of a 2nd Amendment ‘right’ is utterly foreign to everyone outside of the U.S.
Owning a gun (in Oz) is not unlike owning a car - there are restrictions in place, some of which can be expensive (like insurance for example) along with required paperwork (registration, license) and taxes. As long as you adhere to these regulations and behave legally then you’re allowed to own a gun.
The US gun culture is the anomaly compared to the rest of the world. What people everywhere else considers to be reasonable and fair restrictions for the safety of society; the gun nuts in America consider the worst kind of government fascism.
Take the car analogy to a country like Indonesia where there are few vehicle safety rules and no enforcement and you can see that traffic is an absolute nightmare and the roads are shit - everybody basically does whatever the f*ck they feel like with no consideration for anyone else. Such chaos would never be tolerated in the US but yet we allow the proliferation of guns go on virtually unabated - with similar chaotic results I’m afraid.
When it’s loaded in the gun it is also not killing people. Only when it is properly aimed at vital organs and then successfully fired it is killing people. If you want to play semantics, do it at least correctly.
If the caliber (and casing length and so on) fits, it sits. The military version is guaranteed to withstand wider temperature swings, but even the less-than-milspec grades can stay functional for many decade if kept dry and reasonably cool. (And away from ammonia-containing vapors which attack the brass. Don’t piss on or near the ammo.)
It can be convincing to approach this crucial issue with statistics, percentages, numbers. Here’s a number–one. The number one. One may go through his/her entire life without needing to use deadly force to prevent harm to self or others in an unexpected moment. And that’s all it takes–one. One occasion, one panicked moment, when there is no way to help blameless people from dying around you, no way to save yourself from the same terrifying ending. One time is all it takes. Just one. Most people who keep firearms for protection never use them for that purpose, not once during their entire lives. About 2,207,520,000 seconds in a human’s life, give or take a few million, and all it takes is one, unprepared, helpless, moment.
But with a brand new M1911 from Remington Arms, you know your family will be safe. Whether it’s on the go, in your home, or during intimate times, you know that our patented SureShot® technology is working tirelessly to protect your family and your home.*
Oh dear, linking to that idiotic channel has somewhat diminished my opinion of your credibility. Not being funny, you’ve made some good points in other posts, and would probably have done better presenting your argument in your own words rather than let that moron present your argument. Probably for the same reason that people don’t use Hannity or O’Reilly vids here to make a point.
Never mind, I’m sure we see eye to eye on other topics.
Don’t call people hillbillies and hicks, it’s offensive.
A huge number of those guns are not intended for war, killing humans or the commission of crime. A .22 caliber rifle is not a weapon of war. It’s simply not useful for killing humans effectively. It can do that, but so can a hammer. Huge numbers of rifles and shotguns are not of sort intended or useful for war, murder or crime. I have a pair of bolt action, single shot .22 rifles, two single shot break open shotguns, a muzzle loading rifle, and a .44 cap and ball pistol. Plus one I’m not listing.
That’s seven guns, a huge stockpile, but only one is remotely the sort of thing you would choose to defend yourself, or as a weapon if you were going to do something wrong. Sure the rest off them would be a better choice than a hammer. Lumping a 1932 .22 caliber rifle in the same category as an AK47, which is what these sort of statistics do, isn’t entirely useful or accurate. I don’t think most people do it to be deceptive though.
Amen, let’s pass a constitutional amendment which clarifies the right to keep and bear arms. I can see the argument that as currently stated it allows me to own what constitutes a modern infantry weapon, an assault rifle. I like to make the smart-assed argument it should entitle me to own a single shot flintlock pistol and a flintlock musket, as well a sword or tomahawk, but I don’t think that’s politically viable.
I’ll vote for one which makes sure people can own the guns they want and need for sporting uses. Allows for people to own guns to defend themselves and their property. (Though statistically a bad deal, as I said, not everyone is at the same risk of accident or of attack.)
We should ban handguns, they are real problem, it’s that simple.
Banning assault rifles is an emotional issue, it clearly only affects a tiny percentage of even gun crime, and none of the mass shootings would have been less tragic if the shooter had a nice spiffy 18 shot pistol. Those incidents are really a part of the suicide problem rather than the homicide problem. And we won’t reduce them until we look to help people who are in trouble and mentally ill, rather than hunting for monsters. Because they weren’t monsters, they were troubled and suicidal.
If you want you can say they became monsters when they went on those shooting sprees, sure. I view them as their own victims and another piece in the tragedy.
Foreign gun control really isn’t that relevant, Canada is more similar to America in real terms, has a lot more guns than those places, and a lot less crime. So it isn’tt just the guns.
Citing Great Britain in these arguments is always a bad idea, you’re less likely to die as a result of the violent crime you are far more likely to be a victim of there, which is not a selling point to a lot of people.
Also, KNIFE CONTROL, a crime against humanity, not the violation of human rights, but the violation of common sense, it’s an atrocity of stupidity. Never be seen in public on the side of this sort of idiocy. Sticks and stones are next on the list I’m sure, and once they come for the screwdrivers, then the island will collapse into darkness.
