PDA

View Full Version : John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!!


Bacchus
01-26-2013, 01:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRWE2ROW7A

Ratboy
01-26-2013, 02:42 AM
Respect.

As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I am stationed in Japan and they have a gun ban and it seems to work out really well for them.

errand
01-26-2013, 05:28 AM
Want to know why the 2nd Amendment was installed? Google "Battle of Athens McMinn Co. TN" and perhaps you'll understand the real reason people go nuts over gun bans.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 05:42 AM
Respect.

As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I am stationed in Japan and they have a gun ban and it seems to work out really well for them.

You're not stupid. You're well aware there's other things about their society way more responsible than the gun ban.

elsid13
01-26-2013, 06:29 AM
Want to know why the 2nd Amendment was installed? Google "Battle of Athens McMinn Co. TN" and perhaps you'll understand the real reason people go nuts over gun bans.

I have question, do you even think that situation is even possible any more? We live in an era of social media, improved civil right/voting laws, 24 hour news cycle and active judicial and political activism.

BroncoMan4ever
01-26-2013, 06:37 AM
Across the board gun bans aren't necessary, gun LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of guns allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal or a sub machine gun.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 06:49 AM
Across the board gun bans aren't necessary, gun LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of guns allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal or a sub machine gun.

We had the war on alcohol, the war on drugs, why not undertake a war on guns? If the government has proven anything, it's that they can declare a war on something and make it absolutely unattainable by the average person. :thumbs:

ScottXray
01-26-2013, 07:27 AM
As far as the gun ban goes.

I don't think that an absolute assault weapons ban is politically possible.
However, there is really no reason for any private citizen to have a need to have one, other than curiosity and hobby uses. Since these types of weapons are expensive to start with , raising the bar in price is not going to
be much of a hindrance.

Instead of banning them it should be possible to require a license to purchase one, with an extensive background check and waiting period. Positive ID, no criminal history and no mental history should be bare minimum requirements. Currently you can purchase a machine gun, although it requires a federal license ( and a $50000 fee). Requiring such, with maybe a $250 license fee would effectively limit their casual spread. Also, make it illegal for a private party to sell or transfer one to anyone but a licensed dealer, closing the gun show hole. Fine of $10000 for each occurence. The gun shows will continue, but only federally licensed dealers should be able to sell and must comply with federal and state laws.

Over 10 round magazines should be banned, period. While this won't solve the problem, it will at least require the crazy people that have effected some of the recent outrageous killings, to reload more often , giving a 1-2 second gap in their spree. An outright ban on selling any magazine over 10 rounds should be put in, and no magazine should have any removable block or mod that can expand its capacity, possible. There could be a program to exchange large capacity magazines for equivalent smaller ones made a part of such a ban, as well as a outright purchase plan to private citizens. The manufacturers could get a federal check for every magazine exchanged, prompting them to manufacture them ( this will also help the employment situation).

Handguns and "sporting" arms laws ( legitimate hunting rifles, shotguns etc)remain unchanged, except for background checks.

While most honest citizens never use their weapons in any harmful way, the potential for damage of assault weapons is unreasonable, and some laws for restraint are needed, to ensure ( as much as reasonably possible) that they do not go to the wrong people.

With over 300 million guns in private hands in the US this is only a small step.
It will not solve the problems, but may help eventually close down some of the abuses .

Bacchus
01-26-2013, 07:36 AM
As far as the gun ban goes.

I don't think that an absolute assault weapons ban is politically possible.
However, there is really no reason for any private citizen to have a need to have one, other than curiosity and hobby uses. Since these types of weapons are expensive to start with , raising the bar in price is not going to
be much of a hindrance.



There was an absolute assault weapons ban in the 90's and it worked just fine. I went to wal-mart yesterday and their gun selection is almost completely sold out. People are running out and buying these rifles and pistols that are not even in consideration of being banned.

People are just so unimnformed. Either that or they are just plain scared of a government consiracy to take all guns or some dumb ****.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:36 AM
If assault rifles are the main worry how come they only account for a very samll % of gun homicides.

LRtagger
01-26-2013, 07:37 AM
We had the war on alcohol, the war on drugs, why not undertake a war on guns? If the government has proven anything, it's that they can declare a war on something and make it absolutely unattainable by the average person. :thumbs:

Dont forget the war on PEDs

Bacchus
01-26-2013, 07:37 AM
If assault rifles are the main worry how come they only account for a very samll % of gun homicides.

Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:39 AM
Also laws that makes it too expensive for poor people to own guns could be construed as unconstitutional. Not sure you can just say AR rifles ok but it takes 500.00 to do the background check and you have to do it ever yr etc. That will take poor people out of the loop and be a defacto rich guys can have them poor can't.

Also how long do you want to throw people in prison for violating things like failing to get your safety class renewed, or having a clip that holds 20 instead of 10 etc. Do we want prison time for them, just a fine and a slap on the wrist? what?

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:40 AM
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:41 AM
They want to make them illegal because they have a pistol grip. Can one liberal come up with a good explanation how a pistol grip, over a regular stock, makes a gun more dangerous or deadly when being shot at you?

jhat01
01-26-2013, 07:43 AM
AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

because they are an easy target, and half these loons don't know a thing about them except that they look scary.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 07:44 AM
As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I'm quite sure you take an oath to uphold the Constitution when you join the military, do you not?

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 07:45 AM
As far as the gun ban goes.

I don't think that an absolute assault weapons ban is politically possible.
However, there is really no reason for any private citizen to have a need to have one, other than curiosity and hobby uses. Since these types of weapons are expensive to start with , raising the bar in price is not going to
be much of a hindrance.

Instead of banning them it should be possible to require a license to purchase one, with an extensive background check and waiting period. Positive ID, no criminal history and no mental history should be bare minimum requirements. Currently you can purchase a machine gun, although it requires a federal license ( and a $50000 fee). Requiring such, with maybe a $250 license fee would effectively limit their casual spread. Also, make it illegal for a private party to sell or transfer one to anyone but a licensed dealer, closing the gun show hole. Fine of $10000 for each occurence. The gun shows will continue, but only federally licensed dealers should be able to sell and must comply with federal and state laws.

Over 10 round magazines should be banned, period. While this won't solve the problem, it will at least require the crazy people that have effected some of the recent outrageous killings, to reload more often , giving a 1-2 second gap in their spree. An outright ban on selling any magazine over 10 rounds should be put in, and no magazine should have any removable block or mod that can expand its capacity, possible. There could be a program to exchange large capacity magazines for equivalent smaller ones made a part of such a ban, as well as a outright purchase plan to private citizens. The manufacturers could get a federal check for every magazine exchanged, prompting them to manufacture them ( this will also help the employment situation).

Handguns and "sporting" arms laws ( legitimate hunting rifles, shotguns etc)remain unchanged, except for background checks.

While most honest citizens never use their weapons in any harmful way, the potential for damage of assault weapons is unreasonable, and some laws for restraint are needed, to ensure ( as much as reasonably possible) that they do not go to the wrong people.

With over 300 million guns in private hands in the US this is only a small step.
It will not solve the problems, but may help eventually close down some of the abuses .

I have a few issues:

1. Do you really think hunting and sport is the reason the second amendment exists? If not, you can't use that to justify what people can have.

2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

4. Why is this Fed Gov domain? Let the states face this issue.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 07:48 AM
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

Is that the role of the government? To give the majority whatever they want?

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 07:49 AM
AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

Yes, they're taking the "machine gun" thing and taking it upon themselves to paste in "assault weapon" into Elway's words when only "machine gun" came out of his mouth.

This is, as I've been saying, driven by media hysteria and nothing more. This is like the mass panic caused by the 'War of the Worlds' radio show. Literally.

Mass hysteria, also known as collective delusions, is defined as "the spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture or country." (http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring05/Wilson/hysteria.html)

chanesaw
01-26-2013, 07:51 AM
I have a few issues:

1. Do you really think hunting and sport is the reason the second amendment exists? If not, you can't use that to justify what people can have.

2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

4. Why is this Fed Gov domain? Let the states face this issue.

this

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:51 AM
This whole shabang is great for the Repubs IMO. Dems sure to lose some political captial over this and maybe up to seats in the Senate.

Bacchus
01-26-2013, 07:51 AM
AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

ARs are not like other hunting rifles. They are high-power weapons, in addition to firing multiple rounds quickly, their muzzle velocity is almost double that of a typical traditional shotgun. Plus they can be easily modified with 100 round clips and even a grenade launcher.

What happened to the days when you would go deer hunting with your 30-06 Springfield. Damn that is the only hunting rifle you'd ever need, great gun.

jhat01
01-26-2013, 07:52 AM
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

C'mon dude...machine guns have been effectively banned since the thirties.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 07:52 AM
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

Newsflash: Semiautomatic rifles are not machine guns.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:54 AM
ARs are not like other hunting rifles. They are high-power weapons, in addition to firing multiple rounds quickly, their muzzle velocity is almost double that of a typical traditional shotgun. Plus they can be easily modified with 100 round clips and even a grenade launcher.

What happened to the days when you would go deer hunting with your 30-06 Springfield. Damn that is the only hunting rifle you'd ever need, great gun.

you kidding most .223 assault rifles not even legal for hunting big game because they aren't powerful enough. My brothers .308 winchester hunting rifle way more powerful then an AR.

I am all for anyone being caught with grenades to be arrested. Aren't grenades already illegal? If so how is that an issue? That is more BS to try and make non gun owners thing holy cow these people have grenade launchers and live grenades. Fine make it illegal to have a grenade launcher but outlawing pistol grips, collapsable stocks or 2 round clips is a joke.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 07:56 AM
This whole issue just a huge loser for dems on logic alone.

Bacchus
01-26-2013, 07:58 AM
C'mon dude...machine guns have been effectively banned since the thirties.

LOL... well, that was kinda a typo. It was just easier to type that is all.


To tell you the truth I don't really care much abotu this gun control legislation. America is the most violent industrialized country in the world but I think Americans like it that way. Nothing will change that. An ASSAULT weapon ban won't change that either. Am I for it? Sure, but it would not even be talked about if it wasn't for Connecticut. I don't think Obama will stomach a long fight at the cost of some of his other programs.

All that being said you can get a hundred round clip with your AR 15 and shoot all hundred in 30 seconds.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 07:58 AM
2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

Especially from the political left, the fad of the day is to circumvent every law that isn't liked, be it federal marijuana laws or local bans on gay marriage and state benefits to illegal aliens.


3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

No, these shootings are an indicator of the mental health of the shooter, which statistically is that nearly all of them are mentally ill. Blaming society for their behavior? I don't think so.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:05 AM
LOL... well, that was kinda a typo. It was just easier to type that is all.


To tell you the truth I don't really care much abotu this gun control legislation. America is the most violent industrialized country in the world but I think Americans like it that way. Nothing will change that. An ASSAULT weapon ban won't change that either. Am I for it? Sure, but it would not even be talked about if it wasn't for Connecticut. I don't think Obama will stomach a long fight at the cost of some of his other programs.

If you look at the old 1990s "assault weapon" ban, the only meaningful thing about it was the banning of cartridges larger than 10 rounds, which is irrelevant since even pistols can have cartridges of 30. What they "banned" was elements of the housing which looked scary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of assault-weapon laws, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon.

What do pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonet amounts do that's so special besides make a gun look more scary like in the movies? Nothing.

Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/)

jhat01
01-26-2013, 08:05 AM
LOL... well, that was kinda a typo. It was just easier to type that is all.


To tell you the truth I don't really care much abotu this gun control legislation. America is the most violent industrialized country in the world but I think Americans like it that way. Nothing will change that. An ASSAULT weapon ban won't change that either. Am I for it? Sure, but it would not even be talked about if it wasn't for Connecticut. I don't think Obama will stomach a long fight at the cost of some of his other programs.

I hear you..and I agree about the violence which is why I take responsibility for my family's safety. Listen, I don't disagree with everything that's come out of this tragedy, I think all sales of weapons outside of family should go through a FFL holder and background checks done at the time. But the knee-jerk "assault weapon" ban is absurd.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:06 AM
This whole issue just a huge loser for dems on logic alone.

Since when does logic stop them?

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:07 AM
newflash calling a weapon and AR when it shoots a .223 round does not make it more deadly then a regular .223 rifle without the pistol grip.

Bacchus
01-26-2013, 08:10 AM
Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders.

Chris Rock

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:12 AM
Yeah Bauchus that adds to the discussion. Because you know Chris Rock so influential and smart. People always say well what does Chris Rock think about it?

jhat01
01-26-2013, 08:13 AM
Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders.

Chris Rock

Haha the prices are already skyrocketing..hell, good luck even finding reloading components for .223. Shell plates, dies, brass, it's all bought up right now

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:13 AM
Bachus can't back up his claim that AR's are a more deadly rifle, fire at a higher velocity, or carry a bigger punch then hunting rifles. Not his fault though the media tries to make those things true.

BroncoMan4ever
01-26-2013, 08:14 AM
We had the war on alcohol, the war on drugs, why not undertake a war on guns? If the government has proven anything, it's that they can declare a war on something and make it absolutely unattainable by the average person. :thumbs:

I agree the average law abiding person should be able to. Purchase and possess a gun if they so choose. It is their right and I agree with it completely. What I think though is that no one needs an arsenal of dozens of guns and no average citizen needs military grade weaponry. That is why I thibk gun limits should be put into action. However I don't agree that the goverment should take guns from citizens who already possess them.

I walk a middle road on this subject. I believe americans should be able to have guns but I believe the type and amount should be within reason

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:19 AM
I agree the average law abiding person should be able to. Purchase and possess a gun if they so choose. It is their right and I agree with it completely. What I think though is that no one needs an arsenal of dozens of guns and no average citizen needs military grade weaponry. That is why I thibk gun limits should be put into action. However I don't agree that the goverment should take guns from citizens who already possess them.

I walk a middle road on this subject. I believe americans should be able to have guns but I believe the type and amount should be within reason

I am against anything that is hard to enforce, and even when enforced does not make us safer. How many guns someone owns doesn't matter and limiting them to 10 or whatever would not make us safer.

Military grade? what does that mean? Are you saying if the military uses it then the public should not have it? because they use sidearms, shotguns etc etc.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:22 AM
The key to making society safer is best done just locking away criminals. Tons of the crime we face is just some criminal back on the street up to his old tricks again.

To do that we need prison reform so they run cheaper with less guards. Maybe even prisons for people on there 3rd strike that are heavy labor, you never get out. No one needs 4 chances to show you aren't a violent felon.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:23 AM
you kidding most .223 assault rifles not even legal for hunting big game because they aren't powerful enough. My brothers .308 winchester hunting rifle way more powerful then an AR.

Don't tell the liberals or they'll come after your hunting rifle, too.

ScottXray
01-26-2013, 08:24 AM
I have a few issues:

1. Do you really think hunting and sport is the reason the second amendment exists? If not, you can't use that to justify what people can have.

2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

4. Why is this Fed Gov domain? Let the states face this issue.

1. No, but I believe that the peoples right to keep and bear arms comes with certain responsibilites. Having to pay a license fee and pass a background check for certain 'special weapons" such as machine guns ( already in place), "assault" type weapons, extremely large bore rifles and cannons, or bazookas for instance, is both prudent and reasonable.

2. Laws and amendments are two separate things. Changing a law requires an act of congress and or state legislature, whereas changing or eliminating an ammendment requires passage by 3/4 of the states ( generally). Making a fee a requirement to own "special" weapons is already a well established
law. What we are talking about is describing a certain type of weapon as a "special" class. A $250 fee is not unreasonable for weapons that typically cost between 1.5 to 3K. More important is the background check.
Other than a proposal to ban >10 round magazines, and to limit future sales
of assault weapons to only federally licensed dealers, how does my proposal
limit anyone that currently has such weapons? It does not require anyone to turn in magazines ( although it compensates anyone that voluntarily does so), and it does not ban such weapons.
While I agree that current owners are mostly honest and law abiding, there are those that are not. Many have illegally modified their semiautomatic weapons to make them full automatic capable. ( illegal) Limiting their ability to sell their weapons to licensed dealers only, does not affect their right to own them. Only future purchases/sales are affected, and the value will actually go up over time.

3. I agree that you can't stop people from doing things they intend to do. You can make it more difficult.

4. It is federal because of the 2nd amendment itself, which is what guarantees the "right " to keep and bear arms. This supersedes state law.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:24 AM
The key to making society safer is best done just locking away criminals. Tons of the crime we face is just some criminal back on the street up to his old tricks again.

To do that we need prison reform so they run cheaper with less guards. Maybe even prisons for people on there 3rd strike that are heavy labor, you never get out. No one needs 4 chances to show you aren't a violent felon.

A disproportionate number of gun homicides in the US are gang-related, and what do gangs do most besides deal drugs? I've been saying and will continue to say that ANYONE WHO SELLS OR SMUGGLES ANYTHING STRONGER THAN POT SHOULD BE EXECUTED.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:27 AM
I agree the average law abiding person should be able to. Purchase and possess a gun if they so choose. It is their right and I agree with it completely. What I think though is that no one needs an arsenal of dozens of guns and no average citizen needs military grade weaponry. That is why I thibk gun limits should be put into action. However I don't agree that the goverment should take guns from citizens who already possess them.

I walk a middle road on this subject. I believe americans should be able to have guns but I believe the type and amount should be within reason

They don't have military-grade weaponry. What about these rifles makes them "military-grade"? Appearance?

Keep in mind, of course, that criminals almost always use illegal guns - ones they've stolen and that cannot be tracked, for example.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:28 AM
newflash calling a weapon and AR when it shoots a .223 round does not make it more deadly then a regular .223 rifle without the pistol grip.

But one looks scary like in the movies and one doesn't.

Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
01-26-2013, 08:30 AM
you kidding most .223 assault rifles not even legal for hunting big game because they aren't powerful enough. My brothers .308 winchester hunting rifle way more powerful then an AR.

I am all for anyone being caught with grenades to be arrested. Aren't grenades already illegal? If so how is that an issue? That is more BS to try and make non gun owners thing holy cow these people have grenade launchers and live grenades. Fine make it illegal to have a grenade launcher but outlawing pistol grips, collapsable stocks or 2 round clips is a joke.

Yeah it became apparent when he compared the muzzle velocity of an AR15 with a shotgun that he's not real familiar with firearms.

I know a bear hunter or three. They wouldn't be caught dead going anywhere with a 223. That's for Prairie dogs. Not even really adequate for deer. "Assault" rifles are only notorious to people unfamiliar with firearms because they look mean. What is it about this country that policies need be tailored to the whims of the most ignorant?

Bacchus
01-26-2013, 08:30 AM
Yeah Bauchus that adds to the discussion. Because you know Chris Rock so influential and smart. People always say well what does Chris Rock think about it?

it's funny, relax. Trust me, I have been on many different discussion boards in my life and NOBODY'S opinion ever changes by what is typed...EVER.

It's just entertainment

Archer81
01-26-2013, 08:33 AM
Crazy people. Far scarier than any zombie, ghost, vampire or killer doll.


:Broncos:

Dr. Broncenstein
01-26-2013, 08:36 AM
Across the board free speech bans aren't necessary, free speech LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of free speech allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal of free speech.

Lol

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:47 AM
Yeah it became apparent when he compared the muzzle velocity of an AR15 with a shotgun that he's not real familiar with firearms.

I know a bear hunter or three. They wouldn't be caught dead going anywhere with a 223. That's for Prairie dogs. Not even really adequate for deer. "Assault" rifles are only notorious to people unfamiliar with firearms because they look mean. What is it about this country that policies need be tailored to the whims of the most ignorant?

My cousin hunts, lives in Montana, he claims its illegal there to hunt big game like deer with a .223.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 08:47 AM
it's funny, relax. Trust me, I have been on many different discussion boards in my life and NOBODY'S opinion ever changes by what is typed...EVER.

It's just entertainment

Well that explains your posts then.

Rohirrim
01-26-2013, 08:52 AM
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

DENVERDUI55
01-26-2013, 08:56 AM
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

They already are illegal and have been for awhile.

jhat01
01-26-2013, 09:07 AM
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

So you would propose some sort of buyback for the millions upon millions of semi auto pistols, semi auto hunting rifles and sporting rifles that are already out there? Maybe some sort of turn in reward system for all the bad guys running around with the "assault weapons?"

Drunken.Broncoholic
01-26-2013, 09:07 AM
They already are illegal and have been for awhile.

This is an example of how people are so naive on this subject. Ban guns and it will be all roses and rainbows?? Ya right. Ban guns and its more money for the gangs. It means the only people holding are criminals. Criminals do NOT respect laws. It won't stop a pyscho from shooting up a school. How many people have died from alcohol or died as a result of someone else drinking? They banned that too. Who profited from that ban?

All you have to do is look at Chicago. Ya that works.

DENVERDUI55
01-26-2013, 09:22 AM
My cousin hunts, lives in Montana, he claims its illegal there to hunt big game like deer with a .223.

It's state by state. The law usually give caliber min of .243 or a lot of the states say it has to be a centerfire rifle which the .223 qualifies for. I sure wouldn't hunt with that small round and bullets it fires.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 09:25 AM
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that guarantees the right to unrestricted use of the internet, either. You're playing games.

BroncoMan4ever
01-26-2013, 09:30 AM
I am against anything that is hard to enforce, and even when enforced does not make us safer. How many guns someone owns doesn't matter and limiting them to 10 or whatever would not make us safer.

Military grade? what does that mean? Are you saying if the military uses it then the public should not have it? because they use sidearms, shotguns etc etc.

Good point on the military grade point of my post. Did not clarify. Handguns and rifles are weapons anyone can have, but I feel if it is a gun a teenager likes to use in call of duty, it is too much for the average american. And on the point of amount limits, no one should have an arsenal with enough firepower to be able to launch an assault on a building. In america there are 2 trur reasons for having guns. Protection and hunting.

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine. You don't need an M16. For hunting rifles are fine and realistically you don't need an uzi to snuff a deer.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 09:31 AM
It's state by state. The law usually give caliber min of .243 or a lot of the states say it has to be a centerfire rifle which the .223 qualifies for. I sure wouldn't hunt with that small round and bullets it fires.

I dont hunt but logically you would think the bigger the better for hunting. Ladt thing you want is a half killed Moose or something coming at you.

He's coming straight for me!!!!!

DENVERDUI55
01-26-2013, 09:32 AM
What firearm is not like the other bacchus?
http://imageshack.us/a/img46/5277/buckw308ar02.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/buckw308ar02.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

DENVERDUI55
01-26-2013, 09:35 AM
???

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 09:35 AM
Good point on the military grade point of my post. Did not clarify. Handguns and rifles are weapons anyone can have, but I feel if it is a gun a teenager likes to use in call of duty, it is too much for the average american. And on the point of amount limits, no one should have an arsenal with enough firepower to be able to launch an assault on a building. In america there are 2 trur reasons for having guns. Protection and hunting.

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine. You don't need an M16. For hunting rifles are fine and realistically you don't need an uzi to snuff a deer.

wow you left out what guns are used for more then anything. Target practice and recreational shooting. Then you go on to say something vauge if it looks like a gun from Call Of Duty you can't own it? That is so silly. Then last you say a man should only own 1 or 2 guns. What if i want a .22 because the ammo cheap. A shotgun because they are so usefull for protection and small game/bird hunting. Then i need my .20 gauge for even smaller birds. I would like a .308 to hunt deer and a .223 to target practice with and use for protection. In handguns I need both a .22 because the ammo is cheap to practice with, and a bigger one for protection, say a 9mm. Also though my dad gave me a .44 revolver and i have that as a family heirloom. See where i am going with this? What you call an arsenal I call a collection.

Liberals can go **** themsleves on this issue.

cutthemdown
01-26-2013, 09:36 AM
???

If I bought a .223 i think I could see myself going traditional like these guns. not sure i would even want the pistol grip military looking one.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 09:37 AM
To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine.

Even in a home invasion?

2KBack
01-26-2013, 09:47 AM
Good point on the military grade point of my post. Did not clarify. Handguns and rifles are weapons anyone can have, but I feel if it is a gun a teenager likes to use in call of duty, it is too much for the average american. And on the point of amount limits, no one should have an arsenal with enough firepower to be able to launch an assault on a building. In america there are 2 trur reasons for having guns. Protection and hunting.

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine. You don't need an M16. For hunting rifles are fine and realistically you don't need an uzi to snuff a deer.

My guns are 25% for protection and 75% hobby. It's not unlike someone who collects cars. If I want lots of different kinds of guns to shoot at the range, no one has the right to tell me I cannot own them. Who are you to say that I can't just be a hobbyist? Why must I hunt?

ColoradoDarin
01-26-2013, 09:59 AM
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that allows anybody to talk on the internet, tv, radio. Outlaw anything other than typeset printing press and the corner soapbox!

ColoradoDarin
01-26-2013, 10:00 AM
This is an example of how people are so naive on this subject. Ban guns and it will be all roses and rainbows?? Ya right. Ban guns and its more money for the gangs. It means the only people holding are criminals. Criminals do NOT respect laws. It won't stop a pyscho from shooting up a school. How many people have died from alcohol or died as a result of someone else drinking? They banned that too. Who profited from that ban?

All you have to do is look at Chicago. Ya that works.

http://anguishedrepose.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gun-laws.jpg?w=224&h=225&crop=1

ColoradoDarin
01-26-2013, 10:02 AM
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Another/scary-guns.gif

Houshyamama
01-26-2013, 10:07 AM
ARs are not like other hunting rifles. They are high-power weapons, in addition to firing multiple rounds quickly, their muzzle velocity is almost double that of a typical traditional shotgun. Plus they can be easily modified with 100 round clips and even a grenade launcher.

What happened to the days when you would go deer hunting with your 30-06 Springfield. Damn that is the only hunting rifle you'd ever need, great gun.

You truly sound as if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Houshyamama
01-26-2013, 10:11 AM
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

There's nothing in there about bolt action rifles either. That's a weak argument.

ColoradoDarin
01-26-2013, 10:18 AM
2 points from the same article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/)

1) Gun controls don't correlate with gun crime

and

2)"poor blacks in high-crime areas benefit the most from carrying a gun."

Rohirrim
01-26-2013, 10:24 AM
There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that guarantees the right to unrestricted use of the internet, either. You're playing games.

Every American is guaranteed access to the internet? When did that happen?

Rohirrim
01-26-2013, 10:37 AM
There's nothing in there about bolt action rifles either. That's a weak argument.

The point is, government can either limit the type of weapons allowed, or it can't. If it can't, then I should be able to own my own suitcase atomic weapon if I can manage to put one together. Or a fully auto 50 cal. Or a rocket launcher. Or everything from there in a continuum down to a slingshot if that's the way you want to read the 2nd amendment.

Bolt action rifles could be used for hunting. If you need a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round clip for hunting, then you need to find another sport, because you obviously suck at it and you don't get the ethics and anti-cruelty side of hunting.

Everybody tries to simply ignore the part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The founders were strongly opposed to standing armies. Clearly, a big piece of the amendment concerned the ability of the government to raise an army of Minutemen, if the need arose. We now have a "well regulated militia" that is twice what the rest of the world has combined. I doubt we need to worry about Homer keeping that musket over his mantlepiece.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-26-2013, 10:56 AM
This whole shabang is great for the Repubs IMO. Dems sure to lose some political captial over this and maybe up to seats in the Senate.

Translation: "Hooray for dead kids!"

Pony Boy
01-26-2013, 10:58 AM
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

Yes, that will probably work as well as the nation wide 55 MPH limit did ........

lonestar
01-26-2013, 10:59 AM
Respect.

As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I am stationed in Japan and they have a gun ban and it seems to work out really well for them.

Ah just how many ghettos and what kind of a drug problem do they have there?

They are a different culture than we have. Probably why it works better there.

lonestar
01-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Across the board gun bans aren't necessary, gun LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of guns allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal or a sub machine gun.

And no one has a sub machine gun, legally. They were outlawed decades ago.

Now are their automatic rapid fire fapirearms on the streets absolutely but they were not sold legally, registered or in the hands of a NRA member. For that matter solid citizens.

As for an arsenal, if you beleive as many do that the government someday soon may be coming for even more liberties than they have taken so far. Then we do indeed need an arsenal.

DENVERDUI55
01-26-2013, 11:05 AM
If I bought a .223 i think I could see myself going traditional like these guns. not sure i would even want the pistol grip military looking one.

They are all the same semi automatic rifles and their actions work in similar fasion. The first picture is an AR that people always call a full automatic machine gun or assault rifle. Another funny thing is everyone thinks AR's come only in .223 caliber.

lonestar
01-26-2013, 11:12 AM
They are all the same semi automatic rifles and their actions work in similar fasion. The first picture is an AR that people always call a full automatic machine gun or assault rifle. Another funny thing is everyone thinks AR's come only in .223 caliber.

Most of the libs. Do not have a clue on what a firearm is.

There was a great demo by a chick that shoots competitively on Hannity the other night.

She shoot a .223 AR , a .306 a shotgun with a slug and normal shot shell, a 9mm and a .45. And demonstrated the difference in the hole sizes. Showed how the weapons worked.

If the moronic left libs would watch that demo that might have a clue. But they would rather stick their head up their rectums and beleive fenstien and her lies.

Rohirrim
01-26-2013, 11:16 AM
And no one has a sub machine gun, legally. They were outlawed decades ago.

Now are their automatic rapid fire fapirearms on the streets absolutely but they were not sold legally, registered or in the hands of a NRA member. For that matter solid citizens.

As for an arsenal, if you beleive as many do that the government someday soon may be coming for even more liberties than they have taken so far. Then we do indeed need an arsenal.

I don't care what kind of arsenal you put together in your basement. One drone fires a missile from ten miles away and takes out you, your arsenal, your basement, and your house.

Houshyamama
01-26-2013, 11:20 AM
The point is, government can either limit the type of weapons allowed, or it can't. If it can't, then I should be able to own my own suitcase atomic weapon if I can manage to put one together. Or a fully auto 50 cal. Or a rocket launcher. Or everything from there in a continuum down to a slingshot if that's the way you want to read the 2nd amendment.

Bolt action rifles could be used for hunting. If you need a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round clip for hunting, then you need to find another sport, because you obviously suck at it and you don't get the ethics and anti-cruelty side of hunting.

Everybody tries to simply ignore the part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The founders were strongly opposed to standing armies. Clearly, a big piece of the amendment concerned the ability of the government to raise an army of Minutemen, if the need arose. We now have a "well regulated militia" that is twice what the rest of the world has combined. I doubt we need to worry about Homer keeping that musket over his mantlepiece.

The point is for the PEOPLE to retain the right to bear arms, against it's own government if need be... Just like the American Revolution.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 11:20 AM
Rohirrim, Lonestar, and ElusiveOrton... I guess this is where we wrap up our participation in the thread. It's gonna quickly become WRP level.

lonestar
01-26-2013, 12:36 PM
I don't care what kind of arsenal you put together in your basement. One drone fires a missile from ten miles away and takes out you, your arsenal, your basement, and your house.

Yep just like a lib take shots from a far.

I guess they could also use a cruise missile.

You sound like a real nut.

lonestar
01-26-2013, 12:37 PM
Rohirrim, Lonestar, and ElusiveOrton... I guess this is where we wrap up our participation in the thread. It's gonna quickly become WRP level.

Frankly that is where it should have been had no idea it was not.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 01:52 PM
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Another/scary-guns.gif

As I said, media-driven hysteria. Nothing rational here.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 01:56 PM
Ah just how many ghettos and what kind of a drug problem do they have there?

They are a different culture than we have. Probably why it works better there.

Most of their gun violence is like ours: Perpetrated by gangs. There's just less of it.

lonestar
01-26-2013, 02:16 PM
Most of their gun violence is like ours: Perpetrated by gangs. There's just less of it.

They are carrying fully automatic weapons in some case just like our gang members are

Which are already illegal in the USA.

No need to make an semi auto (trigger pull for every shot) because hoods are using something that is illegal already.

Who is responsible for about 80% of the murders in the US, gang members who could care less if they are carrying unregistered weapons.

Far left wing nuts think they will turn in their guns. Ahahahahahahaha

W*GS
01-26-2013, 02:26 PM
Automatic weaponry isn't illegal, lonestar - they're considered <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons">Title II</a> and subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession.

BroncoBeavis
01-26-2013, 02:32 PM
The point is for the PEOPLE to retain the right to bear arms, against it's own government if need be... Just like the American Revolution.

He knows. He's heard it a hundred times. He just prefers a Constitution that can be interpreted to mean exactly what he wants. Even if it means ignoring Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Mason, Payne, Webster, or pretty much any other prominent founder you can think of. Rohir simply believes he has a better understanding of the nature of power than they did. In reality he's far more sheltered than they would've probably imagined possible.

Rohirrim
01-26-2013, 02:36 PM
The point is for the PEOPLE to retain the right to bear arms, against it's own government if need be... Just like the American Revolution.

I think it's fine for people to have guns. I have some myself. Obviously, our society, our people, have not attained a level of consciousness that recommends they have access to semi-autos with banana clips. Maybe the press shouldn't have "protected" American sensibilities and instead broadcast the pics from that classroom and we could all have a better idea of what we're talking about? Anyway, it's not guns that will protect us from the government. Mubarak had tanks and guns in Egypt and the people, for the most part, were unarmed. Didn't save that government.

errand
01-26-2013, 03:27 PM
I have question, do you even think that situation is even possible any more? We live in an era of social media, improved civil right/voting laws, 24 hour news cycle and active judicial and political activism.

anything is possible....you should know that.

Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.....it isn't something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids like genes. It must be preserved and fought for damn near every day.

Our forefathers and the founders knew the day may come when the citizens of this nation would have to fight back against an over reaching tyrannical government like they did when they formed this nation.....and it turns out in McMinn County, citizens did in fact have to fight back to be free.

errand
01-26-2013, 03:32 PM
I'm quite sure you take an oath to uphold the Constitution when you join the military, do you not?

Why yes, one does take a solemn oath to defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic....

I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

errand
01-26-2013, 03:54 PM
ARs are not like other hunting rifles. They are high-power weapons in addition to firing multiple rounds quickly, their muzzle velocity is almost double that of a typical traditional shotgun. Plus they can be easily modified with 100 round clips and even a grenade launcher.

What happened to the days when you would go deer hunting with your 30-06 Springfield. Damn that is the only hunting rifle you'd ever need, great gun.

Umm, the maximum effective range is the same as a .30-06.....so it is in fact like other hunting rifles.

AR-15's cannot be fired any faster than any other semi-automatic weapon can be fired.

Many friends of mine use their AR-15's for hunting wild boars-javelinas, and have yet to see any of them bust out a 100 round magazine, let alone a grenade launcher, which btw would be an M-203.....which I'm sure cannot be purchased in your local gun shop or Walmart, and even if you could, where would you get the ordnance?

errand
01-26-2013, 03:55 PM
Newsflash: Semiautomatic rifles are not machine guns.

you and your ****ing facts....

errand
01-26-2013, 04:17 PM
All that being said you can get a hundred round clip with your AR 15 and shoot all hundred in 30 seconds.

Stop it man.....you're either ignorant as hell about weapons or you're just making **** up.

This is the specs for an M-16A2 military rifle which can be fired either semi-automatically or on full automatic



Cartridge-
5.56×45mm NATO

Action -
Gas-operated, rotating bolt (direct impingement)

Rate of fire-

12–15 rounds/min sustained
45–60 rounds/min semi-automatic
700–950 rounds/min cyclic

Muzzle velocity

3,110 ft/s (948 m/s)

Effective range

550 meters (point target)
800 meters (area target)

errand
01-26-2013, 04:28 PM
Even in a home invasion?

what eludes many on here is that many times the mere brandishing of the weapon sends the unarmed criminals running pissing their pants....and if my weapon is more intimidating than the weapon they are carrying, it will generally make them beat feet as well.

A gun is the perfect example of "better to have it an not need it than to need it and not have it"

lonestar
01-26-2013, 04:30 PM
anything is possible....you should know that.

Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.....it isn't something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids like genes. It must be preserved and fought for damn near every day.

Our forefathers and the founders knew the day may come when the citizens of this nation would have to fight back against an over reaching tyrannical government like they did when they formed this nation.....and it turns out in McMinn County, citizens did in fact have to fight back to be free.

Outstanding post.

However they knew I do not know. But it is almost like they had a Mc Fly in the group to see what has happened in the past 4 years.

Why is it that far left radicals do not understand what is written.

:thumbs:

W*GS
01-26-2013, 04:48 PM
Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.....it isn't something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids like genes. It must be preserved and fought for damn near every day.

Our democracy is that fragile that we need guns "damn near every day"?

Our forefathers and the founders knew the day may come when the citizens of this nation would have to fight back against an over reaching tyrannical government like they did when they formed this nation.....

How?

ant1999e
01-26-2013, 04:49 PM
Newsflash: Semiautomatic rifles are not machine guns.

This is.the problem with most. They are ignorant to the difference.

errand
01-26-2013, 09:26 PM
Our democracy is that fragile that we need guns "damn near every day"?



How?

Every time some mentally disturb whack job pulls the **** that Sandy Hook clown pulled, the government will try to reduce your freedoms a little more.

I liken it like a frog being put into boiling water....if you drop him in the pot of water that is already boiling (a massive ban on all guns regardless of make or model or magazine size) he will jump out immediately to avoid being killed.....however if you put him in a cool pot of water and then turn the heat on increasing it a little at a time (starting with a ban on this gun, then that gun) by the time he finally figures out that it's starting to boil it's too late.

As for how did the founding fathers know the day may come? Look at history dude.....our founding fathers learned their lessons by looking at how other nations were ruled by despots and over reaching governments, which is why the Bill of Rights was written.

The constitution puts limits on what the government can do....not what we the people can do.

Houshyamama
01-26-2013, 09:35 PM
I think it's fine for people to have guns. I have some myself. Obviously, our society, our people, have not attained a level of consciousness that recommends they have access to semi-autos with banana clips. Maybe the press shouldn't have "protected" American sensibilities and instead broadcast the pics from that classroom and we could all have a better idea of what we're talking about? Anyway, it's not guns that will protect us from the government. Mubarak had tanks and guns in Egypt and the people, for the most part, were unarmed. Didn't save that government.

You don't need an assault rifle to shoot up a school, Klebold and Harris didn't use one. I find it interesting that you seem to judge yourself an authority on deciding where the seemly arbitrary line resides that distinguishes between guns you believe I have the right to own and guns you believe I don't. I don't need you to decide that for me.

lonestar
01-26-2013, 09:37 PM
Every time some mentally disturb whack job pulls the **** that Sandy Hook clown pulled, the government will try to reduce your freedoms a little more.

I liken it like a frog being put into boiling water....if you drop him in the pot of water that is already boiling (a massive ban on all guns regardless of make or model or magazine size) he will jump out immediately to avoid being killed.....however if you put him in a cool pot of water and then turn the heat on increasing it a little at a time (starting with a ban on this gun, then that gun) by the time he finally figures out that it's starting to boil it's too late.

As for how did the founding fathers know the day may come? Look at history dude.....our founding fathers learned their lessons by looking at how other nations were ruled by despots and over reaching governments, which is why the Bill of Rights was written.

The constitution puts limits on what the government can do....not what we the people can do.


While molds of folks get this the far left progressives beleive that the document is a living ever changing one. They will never understand that the founding fathers were way smarter than they will ever be.

BTW IMO the founding fathers stated our right to firearms were pertinent for their time frame and understood the wording would be sufficient forever, or they would have included to the effect any firearm as they progress in effectiveness.

They expected people to be smarter than out current leadership seems to be.

errand
01-26-2013, 09:38 PM
I saw a movie where the police and the military were the only ones who could possess weapons.....it was called "Schindler's List"

errand
01-26-2013, 09:47 PM
Liberal : Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Law abiding Gun Owner : It's not about need, it's my 2nd amendment right to own such a weapon.

Liberal : But, assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting....

Law abiding Gun Owner : First off it's not an "assault weapon" it's a semi-automatic rifle. Secondly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protecting liberty from tyranny.

Liberal : So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and liberty?

Law abiding Gun Owner : Well, no...because we have the 2nd amendment

Rohirrim
01-27-2013, 06:44 AM
You don't need an assault rifle to shoot up a school, Klebold and Harris didn't use one. I find it interesting that you seem to judge yourself an authority on deciding where the seemly arbitrary line resides that distinguishes between guns you believe I have the right to own and guns you believe I don't. I don't need you to decide that for me.

All I want to do is have a national discussion over reducing the rate of fire available to the average citizen; A difficult thing to do in the most paranoid country on Earth.

Well, maybe not the "most." That's probably North Korea. But given the rate we kill each other while our culture wallows in violence, we're right up there.

errand
01-27-2013, 08:43 AM
All I want to do is have a national discussion over reducing the rate of fire available to the average citizen; A difficult thing to do in the most paranoid country on Earth.

Well, maybe not the "most." That's probably North Korea. But given the rate we kill each other while our culture wallows in violence, we're right up there.

The rate of fire of a AR15 is the same as the rate of fire for a Glock9....as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

As far as being paranoid goes....citizens of the US have the most freedom to lose than anyone else. In North Korea they very little if any freedom to lose.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 08:54 AM
All I want to do is have a national discussion over reducing the rate of fire available to the average citizen; A difficult thing to do in the most paranoid country on Earth.

Well, maybe not the "most." That's probably North Korea. But given the rate we kill each other while our culture wallows in violence, we're right up there.

Rate of fire isn't what matters. There's a reason why the military removed auto from personal weapons. Well placed shots are more effective than just throwing bullets any day of the week.

Give me 5 x 10 round magazines and I'll do more with it than someone carrying a "machine gun" any day of the week.

With military grade magazines, 50 rounds would take 3 magazines vs the 5 I suggested above. I guarantee I can pull a magazine and reload in less than 3 seconds. The difference in 10 round magazines vs 20s just became a whopping 6 seconds. Unless you're counting shots, know how many I have in my magazine, and are primed to run as soon as that 10th shot fires, the 3 second reload lapse is not going to do you any good at all.

Rate of fire is not the root of the problem here.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 08:57 AM
The rate of fire of a AR15 is the same as the rate of fire for a Glock9....as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

As far as being paranoid goes....citizens of the US have the most freedom to lose than anyone else. In North Korea they very little if any freedom to lose.

We also have the highest occurrence of progressively deviating from a standard. Some countries announce their intentions while Americans have a habit of tiptoeing further and further away.

Example: Once upon a time, things were outside the federal gov't's domain and was reserved for state discretion.

W*GS
01-27-2013, 01:26 PM
errand, how do you propose that an armed revolution would work? That was my question, and instead you launched into an irrelevant rant.

W*GS
01-27-2013, 01:28 PM
While molds of folks get this the far left progressives beleive that the document is a living ever changing one. They will never understand that the founding fathers were way smarter than they will ever be.

You do realize that the FFs didn't want to be worshiped as gods, and that believing that what they wrote was Good because they had written it was something they feared.

Fedaykin
01-27-2013, 01:39 PM
The rate of fire of a AR15 is the same as the rate of fire for a Glock9....as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

Not in terms of effective rate of fire. A average person can easily squeeze a typical trigger 4-6 times a second (more with a more refined trigger), but there's no way an average person is going to maintain control over a pistol at anything close to that rate.

You won't have a particularly high level of accuracy even with a rifle, but you will be able to maintain control of the weapon. In other words, good luck hitting a specific target, but as long as you don't much care which target(s) you're hitting, you're fine.

cutthemdown
01-27-2013, 02:01 PM
They are all the same semi automatic rifles and their actions work in similar fasion. The first picture is an AR that people always call a full automatic machine gun or assault rifle. Another funny thing is everyone thinks AR's come only in .223 caliber.

Yeah .223 just the most popular. They even have .22 tactical style rifles which are a blast to shoot I heard. But yeah hunters get them in .308 so they can hunt deer I know that. Media focuses on the .223 because that is a really popular calibar.

cutthemdown
01-27-2013, 02:03 PM
I don't care what kind of arsenal you put together in your basement. One drone fires a missile from ten miles away and takes out you, your arsenal, your basement, and your house.

Why does that even matter. In America we do most things for recreation and sport. The stand up to the govt if they got oppresive just a non issue IMO.

Fedaykin
01-27-2013, 02:48 PM
Umm, the maximum effective range is the same as a .30-06.....so it is in fact like other hunting rifles.


Note even remotely true. Both weapons will fire their respective projectiles with a similar ballistic trajectory (i.e. drop and velocity curves), but their effectiveness (i.e. accuracy and energy delivery) will vary greatly. A 30-06 fires a much more massive projectile, which means it has a much longer effective range. A 62gr projectile (from an AR-15) is not going to be as accurate or as deadly as a 180gr projectile (180gr is the typical for a hunting round, 220gr is the max).

There's a reason sniper rifles fire the most massive rounds. A more massive round is more stable, is less affected by wind (both resistance and crosswind), and delivers more energy to the target. When coupled with a soft nosed bullet a 30-06 is a great large game rifle (hence it's popularity as a sporting rifle).

With a 220gr bullet a 30-06 is an effective rifle at easily 1000m or more. Obviously this would require an expert marksmen (just like any long range shot), but the rifle itself is capable of delivering a projective with deadly force at that range. The round has been used for confirmed kills at that range.

As points of comparison. At ~550m a 180gr 30-06 round still retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 started with. A 1000m, the 30-06 retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 has @ 150m. And that isn't even the most energetic round a 30-06 is capable of firing.

A light, high penetration round is not what you want for hunting large game. It's much less likely to enable a clean kill at long range, and at short range you're going to get over penetration which is also something you don't want. Putting a nice clean hole through a boar is less desirable than making sure that bullet stays in the boar.

W*GS
01-27-2013, 02:59 PM
As I understand it, typical military rifle rounds are designed to badly wound, not kill, because a badly wounded soldier is a double loss for the enemy - they can no longer fight but also require expenditure of considerable resources to treat, whereas a corpse requires no additional help.

Fedaykin
01-27-2013, 03:02 PM
Yeah .223 just the most popular. They even have .22 tactical style rifles which are a blast to shoot I heard. But yeah hunters get them in .308 so they can hunt deer I know that. Media focuses on the .223 because that is a really popular calibar.

A .308 chambered AR-15 is significantly limited in fire rate by the recoil of that round.

errand
01-27-2013, 05:06 PM
Note even remotely true. Both weapons will fire their respective projectiles with a similar ballistic trajectory (i.e. drop and velocity curves), but their effectiveness (i.e. accuracy and energy delivery) will vary greatly. A 30-06 fires a much more massive projectile, which means it has a much longer effective range. A 62gr projectile (from an AR-15) is not going to be as accurate or as deadly as a 180gr projectile (180gr is the typical for a hunting round, 220gr is the max).

There's a reason sniper rifles fire the most massive rounds. A more massive round is more stable, is less affected by wind (both resistance and crosswind), and delivers more energy to the target. When coupled with a soft nosed bullet a 30-06 is a great large game rifle (hence it's popularity as a sporting rifle).

With a 220gr bullet a 30-06 is an effective rifle at easily 1000m or more. Obviously this would require an expert marksmen (just like any long range shot), but the rifle itself is capable of delivering a projective with deadly force at that range. The round has been used for confirmed kills at that range.

As points of comparison. At ~550m a 180gr 30-06 round still retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 started with. A 1000m, the 30-06 retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 has @ 150m. And that isn't even the most energetic round a 30-06 is capable of firing.

A light, high penetration round is not what you want for hunting large game. It's much less likely to enable a clean kill at long range, and at short range you're going to get over penetration which is also something you don't want. Putting a nice clean hole through a boar is less desirable than making sure that bullet stays in the boar.

That's all nice and what not, but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

"maximum effective range" means......it is the distance at which a weapon can effectively be considered accurate. It has nothing to do with which round is more effective at maiming or delivering a more effective impact.

ZONA
01-27-2013, 05:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRWE2ROW7A

Cmon don't be such a drama queen dude. Why don't you make your thread title reflect what he really said. He said he doesn't think people should have machine guns. He didn't say anything about taking away all of the guns. Seriously, if you want attention, just make a new thread that says I want attention.

errand
01-27-2013, 05:20 PM
errand, how do you propose that an armed revolution would work? That was my question, and instead you launched into an irrelevant rant.

This nation has millions of armed law abiding citizens who will not allow themselves to be disarmed by the government as long as the 2nd amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure you're of the thought that given how well equipped our military is that it would be impossible to overthrow the government that would try to take away our freedoms

I guess you haven't noticed the numerous law enforcement leaders who say that they will not obey unconstitutional orders to seize weapons owned by law abiding citizens....not to mention many of the law abiding gun owners in America are military people who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.....

now imagine if that domestic enemy is our own government....whose side do think these military men and women will be on? The President who is generally only liked by 50% and overstepping his authority or the Constitution installed to protect We the People that they have sworn to defend?

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 05:29 PM
This nation has millions of armed law abiding citizens who will not allow themselves to be disarmed by the government as long as the 2nd amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure you're of the thought that given how well equipped our military is that it would be impossible to overthrow the government that would try to take away our freedoms

I guess you haven't noticed the numerous law enforcement leaders who say that they will not obey unconstitutional orders to seize weapons owned by law abiding citizens....not to mention many of the law abiding gun owners in America are military people who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.....

now imagine if that domestic enemy is our own government....whose side do think these military men and women will be on? The President who is generally only liked by 50% and overstepping his authority or the Constitution installed to protect We the People that they have sworn to defend?
The domestic enemy will likely be some right-wing fringe militia group who commits a terrorist act,based on some BS belief that the gov. is coming for their guns.
AR ban was constitutional back in the 90s,& will be constitutional now,if it were to pass.

ZONA
01-27-2013, 05:30 PM
Liberal : Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Law abiding Gun Owner : It's not about need, it's my 2nd amendment right to own such a weapon.

Liberal : But, assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting....

Law abiding Gun Owner : First off it's not an "assault weapon" it's a semi-automatic rifle. Secondly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protecting liberty from tyranny.

Liberal : So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and liberty?

Law abiding Gun Owner : Well, no...because we have the 2nd amendment

This debate has been going on for so so long. The 2nd amendment is not the most well detailed document written, let's just say that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, this is how I interpret this sentence. Back in the day when this was written, there was no national security or national military like the The Arm, Airforce, Marines or Navy. A well regulated militia of the people was necessary for protection. That is not the case anymore. The well regulated militia is now the military, not the people. And if you did want to argue it's the people, what we have now sure isn't "well regulated" by any means. The lack of background checks, the fact that you don't have to register as a gun owner, etc.

IMO, I don't think it's wrong for an American to own a gun but I think we should be limited to 1 handgun and 1 rifle. Each gun must have a title, similar to a vehicle. If there is a sale, there has to be documented transfer of title. There should be gun registration and every 5 years you should have to renew the registration and prove that you are cable of using said weapon safely.

This IMO would allow the people that are responsible gun owners to keep their and get the guns out of the hands of people that have no reason having one.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 06:01 PM
This debate has been going on for so so long. The 2nd amendment is not the most well detailed document written, let's just say that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, this is how I interpret this sentence. Back in the day when this was written, there was no national security or national military like the The Arm, Airforce, Marines or Navy. A well regulated militia of the people was necessary for protection. That is not the case anymore. The well regulated militia is now the military, not the people. And if you did want to argue it's the people, what we have now sure isn't "well regulated" by any means. The lack of background checks, the fact that you don't have to register as a gun owner, etc.

IMO, I don't think it's wrong for an American to own a gun but I think we should be limited to 1 handgun and 1 rifle. Each gun must have a title, similar to a vehicle. If there is a sale, there has to be documented transfer of title. There should be gun registration and every 5 years you should have to renew the registration and prove that you are cable of using said weapon safely.

This IMO would allow the people that are responsible gun owners to keep their and get the guns out of the hands of people that have no reason having one.

Would it really? Disarming gangs is really that simple?

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 06:06 PM
The domestic enemy will likely be some right-wing fringe militia group who commits a terrorist act,based on some BS belief that the gov. is coming for their guns.


History is written by the victor. A few guys once pledged their lives with the knowledge that if they failed their mission, they'd be considered traitors and hung. We revere them as heroes.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 06:17 PM
History is written by the victor. A few guys once pledged their lives with the knowledge that if they failed their mission, they'd be considered traitors and hung. We revere them as heroes.
What they were dealing with was actually real,not some paranoid delusion.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 06:22 PM
Liberal : Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Law abiding Gun Owner : It's not about need, it's my 2nd amendment right to own such a weapon.

Liberal : But, assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting....

Law abiding Gun Owner : First off it's not an "assault weapon" it's a semi-automatic rifle. Secondly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protecting liberty from tyranny.

Liberal : So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and liberty?

Law abiding Gun Owner : Well, no...because we have the 2nd amendment
At the end of the day,it's not going to be what you or me thinks. If an AR ban passes(which I highly doubt)it will be ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.

jhat01
01-27-2013, 06:22 PM
Would it really? Disarming gangs is really that simple?

That's the rub isn't it. All his outline would do is jack normal people around, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through accomplishing absolutely nothing.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 07:00 PM
What they were dealing with was actually real,not some paranoid delusion.

Lots of colonists that still supported the crown would disagree with you.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 07:04 PM
That's the rub isn't it. All his outline would do is jack normal people around, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through accomplishing absolutely nothing.

That's ultimately the root of the problem with any gun ban. You might make something inconvenient but you can't make anything impossible. They're considering inconveniencing everyone on the hopes that someone will see the inconvenience that lies ahead and it'll divert them from a murderous rampage.

Sorry, I don't buy it. And, ultimately, they can't win. There's no way gun ban proponents could stand up after the first shooting post-ban and say "Hey, 5 people died but at least it was only 5 people!" whereas those opposing the ban could only have 1 person wounded and still be able to say "I thought the ban was supposed to stop these shootings?" The ban cannot succeed perfectly and that'll make it a lose/lose position. Lose getting it through and lose again when you can't stop all violence.

NUB
01-27-2013, 07:31 PM
If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to form a militia, then get rid of it. No militia has stood up to a modern military with only small firearms in nearly a hundred years. The trope of mountainmen scurrying about the Rockies to fight the government is a fantasy. To say the concept is outmoded is an understatement.

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to simply allow civilians to own firearms, fine. But does anyone really think the Founding Fathers would have OK'd all weapons? Their concern at the time were muskets with an effective firing range of about a hundred yards, one round a minute, with very low accuracy. Today, an AR-15 basically accumulates enough force multipliers (mobility, range, firing rate, power) to contest an 18th century regiment singlehandedly.

People seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment has a relationship with technology -- the only Amendment of its kind. It should be the Amendment we return to most for second looks. Who knows what kind of weaponry we'll be talking about in the future.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 07:42 PM
If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to form a militia, then get rid of it. No militia has stood up to a modern military with only small firearms in nearly a hundred years. The trope of mountainmen scurrying about the Rockies to fight the government is a fantasy. To say the concept is outmoded is an understatement.

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to simply allow civilians to own firearms, fine. But does anyone really think the Founding Fathers would have OK'd all weapons? Their concern at the time were muskets with an effective firing range of about a hundred yards, one round a minute, with very low accuracy. Today, an AR-15 basically accumulates enough force multipliers (mobility, range, firing rate, power) to contest an 18th century regiment singlehandedly.

People seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment has a relationship with technology -- the only Amendment of its kind. It should be the Amendment we return to most for second looks. Who knows what kind of weaponry we'll be talking about in the future.

The problem is that it's not the weapons that are making the difference. These kinds of shootings didn't immediately take off after the AR ban was lifted and they didn't exist at today's numbers before the ban, either. For whatever reason, our people just want to kill each other these days. To keep reactively locking things down to try to stop that is a terribly scary precedent.

And as for whether things should be limited - it's an effort in futility.

W*GS
01-27-2013, 07:48 PM
This nation has millions of armed law abiding citizens who will not allow themselves to be disarmed by the government as long as the 2nd amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.

Not every gun owner is a full-throated supporter of the NRA/GOA/JPFO. More than few detest those organizations for their rhetoric and their paranoia.

Who said anything about disarmament?

I'm sure you're of the thought that given how well equipped our military is that it would be impossible to overthrow the government that would try to take away our freedoms

Pretty much, yeah. Until the insurgents get a hell of a lot better equipped, trained, and led, they'd be hamburger. Heck, most of 'em wouldn't even know what hit 'em. They'd be eradicated from miles away without a clue that it was coming.

I guess you haven't noticed the numerous law enforcement leaders who say that they will not obey unconstitutional orders to seize weapons owned by law abiding citizens....not to mention many of the law abiding gun owners in America are military people who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.....

Why are you counting on LEOs and the military and gun owners being on the side of the insurgents? It's no less likely that the gun owners will happily fight on the side of the government against the anti-American traitors. And we know from the Drug War and various "incidents" on the part of the military that barbaric acts are far from impossible.

now imagine if that domestic enemy is our own government....whose side do think these military men and women will be on? The President who is generally only liked by 50% and overstepping his authority or the Constitution installed to protect We the People that they have sworn to defend?

Wasn't a problem for the witch hunts of the 1950s. Given the right propaganda and PR, the military will fall into line and do as they're ordered. They won't be getting rid of John and Jane Doe, regular Americans - they'll be eliminating a threat from domestic terrorists who want America destroyed and who are dangerous traitors and subversives.

ant1999e
01-27-2013, 07:51 PM
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-discussing-assault-weapons-ban-95-if-i-could-have-gotten-votes-outright-ban-i-would-have-done-it

During a "60 Minutes" interview on February 5, 1995 when discussing the federal assault weapons ban, Sen. Feinstein commented she'd get an out right ban if she could.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here," Feinstein said.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 07:52 PM
Wasn't a problem for the witch hunts of the 1950s. Given the right propaganda and PR, the military will fall into line and do as they're ordered. They won't be getting rid of John and Jane Doe, regular Americans - they'll be eliminating a threat from domestic terrorists who want America destroyed and who are dangerous traitors and subversives.

Not just relating to this but isn't that a terrifying thought? The government could never again be stopped, most likely.

W*GS
01-27-2013, 07:55 PM
Not just relating to this but isn't that a terrifying thought? The government could never again be stopped, most likely.

I don't recall the NRA standing up for the rights of the Americans that were targeted, nor did they stand up for those who opposed the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq War. They did just the opposite, by and large.

So much for gun owners being automatic allies.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 08:00 PM
I don't recall the NRA standing up for the rights of the Americans that were targeted, nor did they stand up for those who opposed the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq War. They did just the opposite, by and large.

So much for gun owners being automatic allies.

Just like you said above, it's the propaganda and PR effort.

I don't recall at this point whether it was just that people expected Ds to resist for political purposes or if so many were just ready to retaliate against something but now, in hindsight, that whole period is definitely a dark period in American history.

Rohirrim
01-27-2013, 08:13 PM
So, nothing gets done and the next massacre will be worst than the last massacre. How do I know this? Because the next psycho will want to outdo the last psycho.

ZONA
01-27-2013, 08:55 PM
That's ultimately the root of the problem with any gun ban. You might make something inconvenient but you can't make anything impossible. They're considering inconveniencing everyone on the hopes that someone will see the inconvenience that lies ahead and it'll divert them from a murderous rampage.

Sorry, I don't buy it. And, ultimately, they can't win. There's no way gun ban proponents could stand up after the first shooting post-ban and say "Hey, 5 people died but at least it was only 5 people!" whereas those opposing the ban could only have 1 person wounded and still be able to say "I thought the ban was supposed to stop these shootings?" The ban cannot succeed perfectly and that'll make it a lose/lose position. Lose getting it through and lose again when you can't stop all violence.


Ultimately there are too many guns and gun makers only want more sales, more gun in America. They wouldn't mind at all if we carried guns around like we do our cellphones. Your view that some people might be able to defend themselves if there was an attacker is correct. There would be some people who could have defended themselves. But I guarantee you that there would be more deaths and injuries still because not all bullets always end up where you meant to shoot. There would be innocent people shot by mistake.

The answer is not to put a gun in every hand of every American. Sorry, but this aint the rootem shootem wild west of 1880.

There are 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. You start adding more and more and more guns and that number is going to go up and up and up.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:08 PM
Ultimately there are too many guns and gun makers only want more sales, more gun in America. They wouldn't mind at all if we carried guns around like we do our cellphones. Your view that some people might be able to defend themselves if there was an attacker is correct. There would be some people who could have defended themselves. But I guarantee you that there would be more deaths and injuries still because not all bullets always end up where you meant to shoot. There would be innocent people shot by mistake.

The answer is not to put a gun in every hand of every American. Sorry, but this aint the rootem shootem wild west of 1880.

There are 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. You start adding more and more and more guns and that number is going to go up and up and up.

I'm not really big on the "OMG! Take my guns away and I can't defend myself!!!" thing. Very few are storming down doors with guns at the ready for home invasions. If you can sneak in, steal stuff, and get away then the cops won't get too riled up. If there's an invasion that involves a shooting, you just became public enemy #1.

That said, I'm mostly alarmed by where such actions (gun ban) can eventually lead and the reality that I liken this to taking away the baseball bat after your kid smashed a neighbor kid's skull in with it. I'd be more concerned about the mental state of the kid that could smash in someone's skull than concerned about whether or not all my baseball bats were secured.

The country needs to evaluate how they deal with those incapable of living in a peaceful and harmonious society. We need to face that question as a nation. Until we figure out why so many want to go down as a heinous murderer, taking away a few bullets per magazine won't solve our greatest problems.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 09:23 PM
The NRA leadership is about making money for gun manufacturers. Not even a majority of NRA members stand with NRA leaders.

ant1999e
01-27-2013, 09:47 PM
IMO, I don't think it's wrong for an American to own a gun but I think we should be limited to 1 handgun and 1 rifle.

Love this shyt. ****ing ridiculous.

BroncoBeavis
01-27-2013, 10:01 PM
So, nothing gets done and the next massacre will be worst than the last massacre. How do I know this? Because the next psycho will want to outdo the last psycho.

You do realize the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve a single firearm, correct?

lonestar
01-27-2013, 10:15 PM
The NRA leadership is about making money for gun manufacturers. Not even a majority of NRA members stand with NRA leaders.

And you know this how? Did you get a secret handshake decoder ring that tells you that NRA members are willing to give up their firearms?

Ahahahahahaha progressives y'all do not have a clue.

Rohirrim
01-27-2013, 10:35 PM
You do realize the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve a single firearm, correct?

Damn! I guess you're right. In that case, we should do nothing.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 10:40 PM
And you know this how? Did you get a secret handshake decoder ring that tells you that NRA members are willing to give up their firearms?

Ahahahahahaha progressives y'all do not have a clue.

Who said anything about taking away your firearms? Nobody! GET A CLUE BEFORE RESPONDING TO MY POST!
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/baltsun_121509.shtml
A recent poll shows National Rifle Association members overwhelming favor closing the gun show loophole, and that has the NRA fuming. Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality.

Drunken.Broncoholic
01-27-2013, 11:03 PM
I think it's hilarious when people bring up countries that ban guns, like Japan, and how it's such utopia and peaceful. Wrong. What country has the most gun related murders? Brazil. A country with a strict gun law ban. How's that working for them?

Chicago has strict gun laws. They had a very peaceful weekend. Not.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 11:16 PM
I think it's hilarious when people bring up countries that ban guns, like Japan, and how it's such utopia and peaceful. Wrong. What country has the most gun related murders? Brazil. A country with a strict gun law ban. How's that working for them?

Chicago has strict gun laws. They had a very peaceful weekend. Not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
This chart seems to contradict your post.

NUB
01-28-2013, 01:44 AM
I was a little confused. The post started with Japan, but ended with Brazil. Furthermore, I don't think comparing the U.S. to Brazil and third world banana republics is what I would call a good argument.

Meck77
01-28-2013, 02:21 AM
Damn! I guess you're right. In that case, we should do nothing.

No. Here are a couple of options.

-Volunteer for your neighborhood watch
-No watch? start one
-Volunteer at your childs school
-There are citizens programs to work with police
-Donate money to any of the above
-Work with trouble teens
-Volunteer to help the mentally ill


The list goes on and on and on..............

Instead people sit around and wait for the next score to come in on a shooting. Why? It's easier. Hundreds of millions of people in this country, BILLIONS of potential man hours, yet we sit idle and wait for the next idiot to grab a gun.

Obama argues "It's worth it if we save just one life". Meanwhile the homeless and hungry get stepped over by congressmen on their way to the capital or White House everyday. There are hundreds if not thousands of them within a mile of the ****ing white house yet our administration talks about saving JUST ONE LIFE. How about we start with their own damn backyard.

If the goal is to "save just one life" then let's do it. Feed someone tomorrow. Help someone quit smoking. Help someone quit drinking or beat a drug addiction. Volunteer some time with the vets coming home from the war. Really want to save some lives? Start an organic farm and save THOUSANDS of people from eating chemicals that are being pumped into our food everyday!

Do I need to go on how to REALLY help save just one life starting tomorrow?

Oh never mind. Blog/post on. In a few months some mentally ill person will probably shoot 5, 10 or maybe 20 people and everyone will have something to talk about. During that time probably 50,000 or more people will have died from some of the examples I gave above while most of us DID NOTHING to stop it and even ENCOURAGED IT with our support of those companies or habits.

2KBack
01-28-2013, 07:34 AM
I'm not really big on the "OMG! Take my guns away and I can't defend myself!!!" thing. Very few are storming down doors with guns at the ready for home invasions. If you can sneak in, steal stuff, and get away then the cops won't get too riled up. If there's an invasion that involves a shooting, you just became public enemy #1.

That said, I'm mostly alarmed by where such actions (gun ban) can eventually lead and the reality that I liken this to taking away the baseball bat after your kid smashed a neighbor kid's skull in with it. I'd be more concerned about the mental state of the kid that could smash in someone's skull than concerned about whether or not all my baseball bats were secured.

The country needs to evaluate how they deal with those incapable of living in a peaceful and harmonious society. We need to face that question as a nation. Until we figure out why so many want to go down as a heinous murderer, taking away a few bullets per magazine won't solve our greatest problems.

I agree with this post 100%. If I am not mistaken, violent crime statistics tend to follow the same curves as economic statistics.

and a psycho is a psycho, their tools don't matter, what matters is figuring out why a person snaps in such a way and how to prevent the act itself.

What will the outrage be if one of these people decides to drive a Van into a soccer field one of these days?

Rohirrim
01-28-2013, 07:49 AM
No. Here are a couple of options.

-Volunteer for your neighborhood watch
-No watch? start one
-Volunteer at your childs school
-There are citizens programs to work with police
-Donate money to any of the above
-Work with trouble teens
-Volunteer to help the mentally ill


The list goes on and on and on..............

Instead people sit around and wait for the next score to come in on a shooting. Why? It's easier. Hundreds of millions of people in this country, BILLIONS of potential man hours, yet we sit idle and wait for the next idiot to grab a gun.

Obama argues "It's worth it if we save just one life". Meanwhile the homeless and hungry get stepped over by congressmen on their way to the capital or White House everyday. There are hundreds if not thousands of them within a mile of the ****ing white house yet our administration talks about saving JUST ONE LIFE. How about we start with their own damn backyard.

If the goal is to "save just one life" then let's do it. Feed someone tomorrow. Help someone quit smoking. Help someone quit drinking or beat a drug addiction. Volunteer some time with the vets coming home from the war. Really want to save some lives? Start an organic farm and save THOUSANDS of people from eating chemicals that are being pumped into our food everyday!

Do I need to go on how to REALLY help save just one life starting tomorrow?

Oh never mind. Blog/post on. In a few months some mentally ill person will probably shoot 5, 10 or maybe 20 people and everyone will have something to talk about. During that time probably 50,000 or more people will have died from some of the examples I gave above while most of us DID NOTHING to stop it and even ENCOURAGED IT with our support of those companies or habits.

The gun industry waits for the next psycho shooting too. Why? Because they have to ramp up production to get ready for the big sales to come.

TonyR
01-28-2013, 10:19 AM
Really good read on attempts by many to tie Christianity with the gun lobby.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/christianism-and-violence.html

Rohirrim
01-28-2013, 10:41 AM
Really good read on attempts by many to tie Christianity with the gun lobby.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/christianism-and-violence.html

What, you haven't heard of Delta Force Jesus?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--jfNX2iG004/TkGhvnQDz5I/AAAAAAAABLo/RJBKZydSCnI/s200/jesus_in_combat.jpg

Sullivan makes excellent points, but I'm afraid his argument is futile. In Humpty Dumpty World (ie. modern America), reason and reality are both besides the point. In fact, those who use reason and reality are considered suspicious characters, if not out of touch elitists. To the Right, everything, including god and religion, means whatever they want it to mean.

Meck77
01-28-2013, 01:21 PM
the next psycho

Now we are getting to the root of the problem. The psycho!

Now which one are we waiting on? The pscycho strangler? The pscyho rapest? The one with the knife? The one with the crossbow? The one with the out of control truck? The one who wants to molest our kids? The one who wants to kill us with a shotgun? The one with the 9 mm? The one with the AR15? The one with 44 mag? The one with the long range hunting rifle like the DC sniper?

It's the pyschos with the high scores that really get people excited and wanting to do something. Screw the single gal who was left dead in a ditch. Who cares!

The MEDIA isn't creating this high score challenge. Step right up and try your luck and be a winner!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-28-2013, 03:30 PM
What, you haven't heard of Delta Force Jesus?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--jfNX2iG004/TkGhvnQDz5I/AAAAAAAABLo/RJBKZydSCnI/s200/jesus_in_combat.jpg



Hilarious!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-28-2013, 03:33 PM
Now which one are we waiting on? The pscycho strangler? The pscyho rapest?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Facepalm_%28yellow%29.svg/120px-Facepalm_%28yellow%29.svg.png

Jesus, dude - buy a dictionary!

errand
01-28-2013, 05:25 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people supersedes anything else in the amendment....


This IMO would allow the people that are responsible gun owners to keep their and get the guns out of the hands of people that have no reason having one.

How do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths bent on killing others before they kill themselves?

in bold

errand
01-28-2013, 05:29 PM
That's the rub isn't it. All his outline would do is jack normal people around, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through accomplishing absolutely nothing.


Exactly...these whack jobs cannot devise a real plan to eliminate criminals from getting weapons so they go after the people who are responsible and law abiding.....

that's like legislating the size or type of car or just plain taking away your car because some idiot 4 states away drove drunk and killed someone.

errand
01-28-2013, 05:33 PM
If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to form a militia, then get rid of it. No militia has stood up to a modern military with only small firearms in nearly a hundred years. The trope of mountainmen scurrying about the Rockies to fight the government is a fantasy. To say the concept is outmoded is an understatement.

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to simply allow civilians to own firearms, fine. But does anyone really think the Founding Fathers would have OK'd all weapons? Their concern at the time were muskets with an effective firing range of about a hundred yards, one round a minute, with very low accuracy. Today, an AR-15 basically accumulates enough force multipliers (mobility, range, firing rate, power) to contest an 18th century regiment singlehandedly.

People seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment has a relationship with technology -- the only Amendment of its kind. It should be the Amendment we return to most for second looks. Who knows what kind of weaponry we'll be talking about in the future.

If AR-15's aren't protected by the 2nd amendment because they were invented after it was written, then it stands to reason following that kind of logic that the first amendment shouldn't protect any internet or televised news media invented after it was written.....

Again, my right to own a gun is what protects your right to tell me I can't

errand
01-28-2013, 05:42 PM
The answer is not to put a gun in every hand of every American. Sorry, but this aint the rootem shootem wild west of 1880.



LOL...who said that everyone in America should own a gun? See we don't care if you decide not to own one....but don't infringe on my right to own one. See how that works? Your rights and my rights are not infringed upon....isn't that the way it should be?

All I know is if you're ever the target of a home invasion, the first thing you're gonna do is call 911 so they can send someone with a gun over to hopefully save your life......and like they say, when seconds count the police are minutes away.....they'll show up to make a chalk outline of the dead person.....question is, will it be you or the criminal?

Since you think guns aren't necessary, guess we know whose body will be outlined.

errand
01-28-2013, 05:50 PM
You do realize the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve a single firearm, correct?

Exactly...

http://cnsnews.com/blog/pete-winn/worst-school-massacre-american-history-was-gun-free

errand
01-28-2013, 05:53 PM
And you know this how? Did you get a secret handshake decoder ring that tells you that NRA members are willing to give up their firearms?

Ahahahahahaha progressives y'all do not have a clue.

Wanna watch his head explode? Tell him that the majority of union members don't side with their union leadership...LOL

Why would they join the NRA if they don't care about the leadership of it or the message it speaks?

errand
01-28-2013, 06:02 PM
Damn! I guess you're right. In that case, we should do nothing.

Nobody is saying something shouldn't be done, but punishing law abiding citizens isn't the answer.

what happens next? Heart disease and diabetes is killing too many people, so we'll limit caloric intake? No more sugar? Obese people are a burden on the health care system, so now you have to exercise as directed by a national regimen?

Again limiting the kind of gun a law abiding citizen can own because some nut job went bonkers and killed several people is akin to limiting the kind of car you can drive because a drunk driver killed a family of 5

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 06:05 PM
LOL...who said that everyone in America should own a gun? See we don't care if you decide not to own one....but don't infringe on my right to own one. See how that works? Your rights and my rights are not infringed upon....isn't that the way it should be?

All I know is if you're ever the target of a home invasion, the first thing you're gonna do is call 911 so they can send someone with a gun over to hopefully save your life......and like they say, when seconds count the police are minutes away.....they'll show up to make a chalk outline of the dead person.....question is, will it be you or the criminal?

Since you think guns aren't necessary, guess we know whose body will be outlined.

Who's infringing? Your paranoid delusions about the gov. Coming to take your guns has no basis in reality.
SCOTUS has already ruled it constitutional to regulate firearms,so no, an AR ban infringes on no ones rights.

errand
01-28-2013, 06:05 PM
I was a little confused. The post started with Japan, but ended with Brazil. Furthermore, I don't think comparing the U.S. to Brazil and third world banana republics is what I would call a good argument.


As of January 18th the city of chicago which has very tough gun laws had endured 23 murders and 80 people wounded in gun violence.

Again instead of trying to limit what kind of weapon I can have as a law abiding citizen, tell me - how you intend to disarm the criminal element in america?

errand
01-28-2013, 06:11 PM
Who's infringing? Your paranoid delusions about the gov. Coming to take your guns has no basis in reality.
SCOTUS has already ruled it constitutional to regulate firearms,so no, an AR ban infringes on no ones rights.

you really think it'll stop there? Now you're the one being delusional....

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 06:29 PM
you really think it'll stop there? Now you're the one being delusional....
Well it isn't like this would be the first time there was a AR ban.
They didn't come for your guns then.

That One Guy
01-28-2013, 07:18 PM
Who's infringing? Your paranoid delusions about the gov. Coming to take your guns has no basis in reality.
SCOTUS has already ruled it constitutional to regulate firearms,so no, an AR ban infringes on no ones rights.

Would you say you agree with every ruling the SC has ever made? You don't think they occasionally get one wrong?

That One Guy
01-28-2013, 07:22 PM
Well it isn't like this would be the first time there was a AR ban.
They didn't come for your guns then.

Once they find out that an AR ban won't solve the problem, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they'll try to find what more can be done? The last AR ban didn't occur as a response to a string of murderous rampages, did it?

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 07:50 PM
Once they find out that an AR ban won't solve the problem, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they'll try to find what more can be done? The last AR ban didn't occur as a response to a string of murderous rampages, did it?

The slippery slope argument. No evidence to support it.
Also they,Obama & supporters,never said it would bring an end to all gun violence. No one is making that claim.

That One Guy
01-28-2013, 08:10 PM
The slippery slope argument. No evidence to support it.
Also they,Obama & supporters,never said it would bring an end to all gun violence. No one is making that claim.

So in one sentence you tell me there's no evidence to support it being a slippery slope (We'll ignore logical conclusions for the time being) then in the next you tell me that no one expects it to end gun violence. Are you under the impression that Obama will just throw his hands in the air if ever questioned about gun violence after an AR ban and say "we banned ARs, there's nothing more we can do"?

An AR ban can't be the end-state because as you said, it won't solve the problems. If it's not the end state, it must be merely a stepping stone.

To be honest, this is why I hate the WRP. You dance in circles with no one being allowed to rely solely on logic. Your two statements are contradictory but since neither is concretely proven, you refuse to acknowledge either. Do you really enjoy such discourse?

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 08:24 PM
So in one sentence you tell me there's no evidence to support it being a slippery slope (We'll ignore logical conclusions for the time being) then in the next you tell me that no one expects it to end gun violence. Are you under the impression that Obama will just throw his hands in the air if ever questioned about gun violence after an AR ban and say "we banned ARs, there's nothing more we can do"?

An AR ban can't be the end-state because as you said, it won't solve the problems. If it's not the end state, it must be merely a stepping stone.

To be honest, this is why I hate the WRP. You dance in circles with no one being allowed to rely solely on logic. Your two statements are contradictory but since neither is concretely proven, you refuse to acknowledge either. Do you really enjoy such discourse?
You seem to be under the impression that they will keep going until all guns are gone. We have the death penalty,does that stop all murders? No. But it decreases the amt of murders that happen. Do we stop using the death penalty since people still get killed.
In order for the gov to ever come after your guns they will first have to remove the 2nd amendment which will never happen.

That One Guy
01-28-2013, 08:44 PM
You seem to be under the impression that they will keep going until all guns are gone. We have the death penalty,does that stop all murders? No. But it decreases the amt of murders that happen. Do we stop using the death penalty since people still get killed.
In order for the gov to ever come after your guns they will first have to remove the 2nd amendment which will never happen.

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere because it cannot be done. They could never get the numbers needed to repeal it.

They could, however, incrementally make it such a hassle that law-abiding citizens could not have guns. Look at their current ideas: AR bans, licensing every gun, background checks for all guns, background checks for ammo, etc.

They can easily destroy the law-abiding gun owners and never even utter the words "2nd amendment".

errand
01-28-2013, 09:00 PM
when they take away one right, what's to stop them from taking other rights?

errand
01-28-2013, 09:01 PM
The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere because it cannot be done. They could never get the numbers needed to repeal it.

They could, however, incrementally make it such a hassle that law-abiding citizens could not have guns. Look at their current ideas: AR bans, licensing every gun, background checks for all guns, background checks for ammo, etc.

They can easily destroy the law-abiding gun owners and never even utter the words "2nd amendment".

and because they'll do so under the guise of protecting everyone many on here won't even realize it until its too late

ant1999e
01-28-2013, 10:02 PM
Well it isn't like this would be the first time there was a AR ban.
They didn't come for your guns then.

But they wanted to...

cutthemdown
01-29-2013, 08:35 AM
But they wanted to...

Yep peace doesn't understand that we are fighting not only what they are trying to do now, but they really want to do in the future. A line in the sand seems outrageous but the liberal agenda must be stopped now. if you give them what they want now someday the liberals will come for more, then more then guns will be illegal and taxes will be 50% of everyones income.

cutthemdown
01-29-2013, 08:37 AM
You seem to be under the impression that they will keep going until all guns are gone. We have the death penalty,does that stop all murders? No. But it decreases the amt of murders that happen. Do we stop using the death penalty since people still get killed.
In order for the gov to ever come after your guns they will first have to remove the 2nd amendment which will never happen.

Actually I think studies have shown the death penalty does not change murder rates.

peacepipe
01-29-2013, 08:41 AM
Yep peace doesn't understand that we are fighting not only what they are trying to do now, but they really want to do in the future. A line in the sand seems outrageous but the liberal agenda must be stopped now. if you give them what they want now someday the liberals will come for more, then more then guns will be illegal and taxes will be 50% of everyones income.

You're forgetting that even conservatives,specifically scalia of SCOTUS,disagrees with you on your paranoid assumptions.

peacepipe
01-29-2013, 08:51 AM
Actually I think studies have shown the death penalty does not change murder rates.

Yes,but murder rates would be much higher without said punishment,not to exclude life sentences.

Bacchus
01-29-2013, 10:43 AM
Yes,but murder rates would be much higher without said punishment,not to exclude life sentences.

That is why the penalty would be life w/o parole

nyuk nyuk
01-29-2013, 11:41 AM
You're forgetting that even conservatives,specifically scalia of SCOTUS,disagrees with you on your paranoid assumptions.

Stop misquoting Scalia, plz.

nyuk nyuk
01-29-2013, 11:43 AM
Actually I think studies have shown the death penalty does not change murder rates.

I think we misapply it and clearly don't use it often enough. My specific suggestion here is to execute prisoners in the middle of the prison cafeteria during lunch hour. I think that would be a lovely deterrent. Unfortunately, of course, we have to be liberalized pussies about it and water down the entire process while tiptoeing around liberal sensibilities.

TonyR
01-29-2013, 11:46 AM
I think we misapply it and clearly don't use it often enough. My specific suggestion here is to execute prisoners in the middle of the prison cafeteria during lunch hour. I think that would be a lovely deterrent. Unfortunately, of course, we have to be liberalized pussies about it and water down the entire process while tiptoeing around liberal sensibilities.

Actually, wouldn't doing this be against both Christian and conservative sensibilities? And shouldn't someone who masquerades as being both of these things know this?

nyuk nyuk
01-29-2013, 11:49 AM
Actually, wouldn't doing this be against both Christian and conservative sensibilities? And shouldn't someone who masquerades as being both of these things know this?

Not in my view. The Bible is actually full of such things.

As I said, I think it would be a great deterrent. Liberals, more than anyone, however, would rush forward to shriek bloody murder about it.

peacepipe
01-29-2013, 11:49 AM
Stop misquoting Scalia, plz.

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)


Nothing misquoted this part of the ruling in DC vs Heller

Requiem
01-29-2013, 11:52 AM
The death penalty isn't a deterrent on crime. Never has been, never will be.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 11:57 AM
I think we misapply it and clearly don't use it often enough. My specific suggestion here is to execute prisoners in the middle of the prison cafeteria during lunch hour. I think that would be a lovely deterrent. Unfortunately, of course, we have to be liberalized pussies about it and water down the entire process while tiptoeing around liberal sensibilities.

Move to one of the less liberal countries that use the death penalty, please.

You can choose from China, North Korea, Cuba, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and few other enlightened places.

TonyR
01-29-2013, 11:58 AM
Not in my view. The Bible is actually full of such things.

The bible being "full of such things" does not make them Christian or conservative. In fact, quite the contrary. Show me where Christ's teachings would support such things. Below is some support for the fact that he wouldn't.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people... Jesus said [to Judas], “Do what you came for, friend.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

nyuk nyuk
01-29-2013, 12:00 PM
Nothing misquoted this part of the ruling in DC vs Heller

1) M16s are military rifles with fully-automatic capability. We aren't talking about machine guns.

2) Scalia also ruled trigger locks were unconstitutional.

3) He should have checked medial confidentiality laws before saying it's ok to ban the mentally ill from gun ownership. It is illegal to rifle through anyone's medical file and it's also a breach of doctor/patient confidentiality.

nyuk nyuk
01-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Move to one of the less liberal countries that use the death penalty, please.

You can choose from China, North Korea, Cuba, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and few other enlightened places.

My family has been here since at least 1650 and fought in the Revolutionary War. You can kiss my ass.

Funny the first 3 countries you name are leftist strongholds, the same ones you have continually trashed the US for trying to undermine.

Derp derp.

nyuk nyuk
01-29-2013, 12:05 PM
The bible being "full of such things" does not make them Christian or conservative. In fact, quite the contrary. Show me where Christ's teachings would support such things. Below is some support for the fact that he wouldn't.

The last time I pondered how liberals selectively quote the Bible, this basic observation occurred to me: They always cull out the entire Bible except what Jesus said, as if somehow the rest of the Bible isn't valid.

It's called "cherry picking" in the adult world. Why are you doing it?

Btw, Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 12:15 PM
The last time I pondered how liberals selectively quote the Bible, this basic observation occurred to me: They always cull out the entire Bible except what Jesus said, as if somehow the rest of the Bible isn't valid.

It's called "cherry picking" in the adult world. Why are you doing it?

Btw, Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

http://x92.xanga.com/fe9e056bc1734278653693/b221966129.jpg

TonyR
01-29-2013, 12:17 PM
The last time I pondered...

I'm not sure you "ponder" many things. It usually appears as if your mind is pretty much made up.

But again, show me where Christ's teachings would support public executions.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 12:18 PM
My family has been here since at least 1650 and fought in the Revolutionary War. You can kiss my ass.

My family has been here since at least 1630 and fought in the War for Independence (we didn't overthrow the British government, you know), so you can kiss *my* ass.

Funny the first 3 countries you name are leftist strongholds

So, you're a leftist.

the same ones you have continually trashed the US for trying to undermine.

Well, no. But right-wing mouth breathers such as yourself aren't know for their intellectual acumen, so you're forgiven.

Derp derp.

On your part, indeed.

That One Guy
01-29-2013, 12:20 PM
1) M16s are military rifles with fully-automatic capability. We aren't talking about machine guns.



The original M16 and the M16A3, I believe, were both capable of automatic fire but the A2 and the A4 are both burst only. I guess you could call burst automatic but you probably couldn't get away with fully-automatic or machine gun, necessarily.

cutthemdown
01-29-2013, 12:24 PM
I think we misapply it and clearly don't use it often enough. My specific suggestion here is to execute prisoners in the middle of the prison cafeteria during lunch hour. I think that would be a lovely deterrent. Unfortunately, of course, we have to be liberalized pussies about it and water down the entire process while tiptoeing around liberal sensibilities.

I have to disagree. The govt sometimes gets its wrong which is why i dont support it. Cops lie, DAs get it wrong, you cant reverse that ****.

Too many documented cases of injustice. At least life in prison can be reversed to man he did 20 yrs for something he didnt do.

Besides death penalty cases cost too much money. Better to reform prisons into labor prisons that can fill in for all the govt services we are going to have to cut. I know the side of my freeway needs the trash picked up every week. The bring prisoners out every month or so, ones doing community service prob, but we have plenty more where they come from.

There has got to be some military products not to expensive or high tech we could have prison labor make right? Boots? something. Give a prison a factory and have at it.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 12:25 PM
Btw, Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

Yep, he's takin' names and kicking ass...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bOV9CpGWUgA/S7TN0aRWSGI/AAAAAAAAALY/Ttg-XXbjbJY/s400/jesus-gun.png

Requiem
01-29-2013, 01:00 PM
You guys actually have documentation that dates back to the 1600s on your ancestor arrival in the America's? Pretty impressive.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 01:31 PM
You guys actually have documentation that dates back to the 1600s on your ancestor arrival in the America's? Pretty impressive.

I don't. My mom does. She's a geneaology nut.

The oldest person I see is this fellow:

Henry BURT, born 1595, Harberton, Devonshire, England; died 30 Apr 1662, Springfield, Ma.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 02:05 PM
Little-known photo of nyuk nyuk's tat:

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6991095552/h579A6762/

Rohirrim
01-29-2013, 02:20 PM
I think we misapply it and clearly don't use it often enough. My specific suggestion here is to execute prisoners in the middle of the prison cafeteria during lunch hour. I think that would be a lovely deterrent. Unfortunately, of course, we have to be liberalized pussies about it and water down the entire process while tiptoeing around liberal sensibilities.

After all, Jesus brought the sword. He would have decapitated these mofos in the village square, like the Saudis do. Long live the King of Peace...

or something. :puff:

cutthemdown
01-29-2013, 05:09 PM
You guys actually have documentation that dates back to the 1600s on your ancestor arrival in the America's? Pretty impressive.

All of us truebloods can. Mongrols like you? probably not. Hilarious!

Requiem
01-30-2013, 06:06 AM
I don't. My mom does. She's a geneaology nut.

The oldest person I see is this fellow:

Henry BURT, born 1595, Harberton, Devonshire, England; died 30 Apr 1662, Springfield, Ma.

Woah! That's awesome W*GS! After my grandparents passed, they told me to carry on the geneaology tradition for our family. I've been working on a family history book with stories, photos, geneaology records, etc. -- and it's quite crazy. I really enjoy the stuff. Most people in my family think it is a waste of time.

I'm obsessed with ancestral crap and actually would like to do a DNA test sometime to find more information about haplogroups, but I hear it is pretty expensive. It's cool that your mom does that stuff. Maybe one day you will be the one in charge of all the records and research. Super cool!

W*GS
01-30-2013, 07:16 AM
Woah! That's awesome W*GS! After my grandparents passed, they told me to carry on the geneaology tradition for our family. I've been working on a family history book with stories, photos, geneaology records, etc. -- and it's quite crazy. I really enjoy the stuff. Most people in my family think it is a waste of time.

I'm obsessed with ancestral crap and actually would like to do a DNA test sometime to find more information about haplogroups, but I hear it is pretty expensive. It's cool that your mom does that stuff. Maybe one day you will be the one in charge of all the records and research. Super cool!

I got her going on ancestry.com - transferred what she had done to that site and she's going nutso. I recommend it.

DenverBrit
01-30-2013, 07:19 AM
Not in my view. The Bible is actually full of such things.

As I said, I think it would be a great deterrent. Liberals, more than anyone, however, would rush forward to shriek bloody murder about it.

And this is a good thing? How about a society that is based strictly upon the Old Testament? Specifically, my old favorite, Leviticus.

Rohirrim
01-30-2013, 07:34 AM
I got her going on ancestry.com - transferred what she had done to that site and she's going nutso. I recommend it.

I started into some of that stuff. The LDS have tons of info in the Denver Library. I discovered that my paternal line springs from the same clan as Eric the Red and Lief Ericson, who of course were driven from Norway for being cattle thieves. But other than that...

The reason I gave up on it was because of the numbers game. Go back 7 generations and you're talking about 128 direct ancestors. And that's just the great, great, great, etc grandparents.

Requiem
01-30-2013, 08:22 AM
I started into some of that stuff. The LDS have tons of info in the Denver Library. I discovered that my paternal line springs from the same clan as Eric the Red and Lief Ericson, who of course were driven from Norway for being cattle thieves. But other than that...

The reason I gave up on it was because of the numbers game. Go back 7 generations and you're talking about 128 direct ancestors. And that's just the great, great, great, etc grandparents.

Nice!

I guess the coolest thing I've found is documents going back into the 1700s where we had people leave Germany to Kleinliebental (outside Odessa, Ukraine) and then in on their way to America in the early 1800s. I look at pictures of the village my family left in the Ukraine and look at where they settled in America and it's no surprise. Flatlands, prairies. All the damn same. It's a German-Russian thing I guess. :)