MuzzleBrake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > M-16's, M-4's (a shorter version of the M-16),
> and
> > AR-15's are primarily semi-automatic firearms.
> > This means that in order for you to fire a
> round,
> > just pull the trigger. You can fire rounds as
> > quickly as you can pull the trigger - in
> theory.
> >
> > The M-16 and M-4 have a selector switch with 3
> > options (safe, semi, burst). Selecting 'Semi'
> > allows for 1 round to be fired with 1 trigger
> > pull. Selecting 'Burst' allows for 3 rounds to
> be
> > fired with 1 trigger pull. That option
> resembles
> > an automatic, but not completely.
> >
> > The civilian AR-15 is a semi-automatic, that
> can
> > be configured to fire 3 rounds with 1 trigger
> > pull, just as the M-16, M-4. It natively fires
> 1
> > round per 1 trigger pull.
> >
> > The AR-15, among many others, should be banned
> for
> > civilian use.
>
> There's no burst feature on an AR-15. Are you
> making this up or just naive?

Some people rig their AR-15's with after-market parts/modifications to enable a 3-round burst. It is easy to do.

Modifying your gun like that is also a federal offense. If word gets out that you own one or are making them for others, the ATF will be dropping by to say hello. They make a rail feature for Glock's that turn them into fully automatic, just owning that rail along with a gun is illegal, even if they're not attached.

BrandonG.M.U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Modifying your gun like that is also a federal
> offense. If word gets out that you own one or are
> making them for others, the ATF will be dropping
> by to say hello. They make a rail feature for
> Glock's that turn them into fully automatic, just
> owning that rail along with a gun is illegal, even
> if they're not attached.


Right. The parts themselves independent of the weapon are considered Class III. Unless you jump through the hoops and comply with all requirements, then you're looking at a Federal felony = 10 years + up to $10,000 fine.

could also install a bumpfire stock and be completely legal, but obviously you lose out on accuracy vs a real burst fire.

it seems like nobody is mentioning the actual reason for the second amendment: to be able to protect yourself from or overthrow the government. seriously, that's it. the founders were oppressed by their old government, fought like hell for freedom and they wanted to make damn sure people could revolt if need be.

seems like nobody brings that point up anymore. however, i suspect guerilla warfare in the US would be very different because of the technology people and government have at their disposal. a cutting laser could blind an entire army of people in a couple seconds without actually being pointed toward the people affected.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it seems like nobody is mentioning the actual
> reason for the second amendment: to be able to
> protect yourself from or overthrow the government.
> seriously, that's it. the founders were
> oppressed by their old government, fought like
> hell for freedom and they wanted to make damn sure
> people could revolt if need be.
>
> seems like nobody brings that point up anymore.
> however, i suspect guerilla warfare in the US
> would be very different because of the technology
> people and government have at their disposal. a
> cutting laser could blind an entire army of people
> in a couple seconds without actually being pointed
> toward the people affected.


Quite a few years ago a Brit IT guy was installing some gear
in my office and we talked about the freedom we have in this
country in regards to firearms. He was envious and said he'd
always wanted to go hunting and own firearms but in the UK
it's a plaything for the very wealthy. I told him of one
of the reasons as to why we have a 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.

"For many months before Paul Revere made his ride, tension between the Colonists and British Troops had been on the rise, both in the city and in surrounding towns. The Royal Government (the British government in Massachusetts) wanted to ensure that troops would be able to secure the colony in case of rebellion. Orders went out to confiscate weapons that the Colonists had been storing throughout the countryside."

http://www.oldnorth.com/history/april18.htm

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it seems like nobody is mentioning the actual
> reason for the second amendment: to be able to
> protect yourself from or overthrow the government.
> seriously, that's it. the founders were
> oppressed by their old government, fought like
> hell for freedom and they wanted to make damn sure
> people could revolt if need be.
>
> seems like nobody brings that point up anymore.
> however, i suspect guerilla warfare in the US
> would be very different because of the technology
> people and government have at their disposal. a
> cutting laser could blind an entire army of people
> in a couple seconds without actually being pointed
> toward the people affected.


Thats horseshit.

The second amendment was written at a time when we did not have a standing army but we did have hostile powers on our borders (remember when Canada invaded and burned down the white house and Dolly Madison had her slaves save the portrait of George Washington?).

We relied on our militia and an armed citizenry because we didn't have a standing army, in fact the Constitution prohibits funding armies for more than a couple of years at a time (unlike the navy). Guns were also important for other reasons but the armed citizenry wasn't supposed to "keep the government honest"

If the second amendment were really about the people's ability to revolt, then the second amendment would protect our rights to keep surface to air missiles and tankbusters or do you think you can beat back the 3rd infantry division with your AR-15s?

The second amendment isn't the fusebox of our democracy, Its largely a vestige of the infancy of our nation.

damuri ajashi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If the second amendment were really about the
> people's ability to revolt, then the second
> amendment would protect our rights to keep surface
> to air missiles and tankbusters or do you think
> you can beat back the 3rd infantry division with
> your AR-15s?


And what makes you think that they'd all be on one side? Experience says that's not the way that such things usually work.


>
> The second amendment isn't the fusebox of our
> democracy, Its largely a vestige of the infancy of
> our nation.


Sorry, SCOTUS opinion trumps your opinion. Read Heller.

Hey Moron, the Taliban do just fine beating back the 3rd division with just a rusty Chinese made Norinco AK-47 and a goat. So yes, my AR-15 will do just fine.


damuri ajashi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it seems like nobody is mentioning the actual
> > reason for the second amendment: to be able to
> > protect yourself from or overthrow the
> government.
> > seriously, that's it. the founders were
> > oppressed by their old government, fought like
> > hell for freedom and they wanted to make damn
> sure
> > people could revolt if need be.
> >
> > seems like nobody brings that point up anymore
>
> > however, i suspect guerilla warfare in the US
> > would be very different because of the
> technology
> > people and government have at their disposal.
> a
> > cutting laser could blind an entire army of
> people
> > in a couple seconds without actually being
> pointed
> > toward the people affected.
>
>
> Thats horseshit.
>
> The second amendment was written at a time when we
> did not have a standing army but we did have
> hostile powers on our borders (remember when
> Canada invaded and burned down the white house and
> Dolly Madison had her slaves save the portrait of
> George Washington?).
>
> We relied on our militia and an armed citizenry
> because we didn't have a standing army, in fact
> the Constitution prohibits funding armies for more
> than a couple of years at a time (unlike the
> navy). Guns were also important for other reasons
> but the armed citizenry wasn't supposed to "keep
> the government honest"
>
> If the second amendment were really about the
> people's ability to revolt, then the second
> amendment would protect our rights to keep surface
> to air missiles and tankbusters or do you think
> you can beat back the 3rd infantry division with
> your AR-15s?
>
> The second amendment isn't the fusebox of our
> democracy, Its largely a vestige of the infancy of
> our nation.

U R Stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Moron, the Taliban do just fine beating back
> the 3rd division with just a rusty Chinese made
> Norinco AK-47 and a goat. So yes, my AR-15 will
> do just fine.

Last time the militias went up against the professional army in this country, the militias lost. They called it the War of Northern Agression.

A repeat would have the same result, just with a lot more people dead.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U R Stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Moron, the Taliban do just fine beating
> back
> > the 3rd division with just a rusty Chinese made
> > Norinco AK-47 and a goat. So yes, my AR-15
> will
> > do just fine.
>
> Last time the militias went up against the
> professional army in this country, the militias
> lost. They called it the War of Northern
> Agression.
>
> A repeat would have the same result, just with a
> lot more people dead.


Actually both sides had regular army and malitia elements. The army split its loyalty depending on where people were born. A modern day civil war like every civil war in history would see elements of the military on both sides

a modern civil war would be borderless, insurgent-based, and sadly enough.................well, if it happens then we Americans would make Serbs and Iraqis look like girl scouts.

Our BS civil war would have WAY more civilian targets (oh, what am I talking about...................they'll NEVER have the balls to consider the minorities that are gonna be culled "civilians" ) and war atrocities than any other war in the last century, maybe even millennium.

In 1928, th Weimar Republic in Germany passed a gun law that required all privately held guns to be registered with local authorities. When the Nazis took control a couple of years later, they used those lists to confiscate private firearms. Then the Nazis passed a new law in 1938 that made it illegal to own a firearm unless you were approved by the Nazi Party. Once again, evidence that 'gun control' isn't about controlling guns, but rather about controlling us.

If you combine the 2nd Amendment with the Federalist Papers and commentary by contemporaries in the late 1700's and early 1800's, it is clear that the intent was to allow the people to maintain ultimate power over the government and not allow another dictatorship brought about by the point of an army's musket over a defenseless populace. A simple Google search shows this. Gravis is correct.

@Less - wow..............comparing 2010 America with 1928 Germany.

Um, I take it you werent around in the 80s. Well, I was so I can tell you WE HAD NO WORLD WAR THEN! We havent been denied the right to sign any treaty last I check.......

No socialist revolution, no hyperinflation, nada. Different ppls and different times, different situation, my friend.

yes, "Gun Control" is about controlling us. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY!?!? BECAUSE SOME OF Y'ALL WANT TO KILL MY CHILDREN AS THEY SIT IN THE SCHOOL?!?!?!?!

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!

I tell you what, gunnuts - you police yourselves and control your fucking guns better, we wont be having this discussion, will we?

You cry "2nd admendment" over and over because it's your right - but still, most of y'all so coward to owe up to SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY part of that right - you know, the part were you dont let your guns kill our children.

So yeah, until y'all quit fucking that part of it up, then yes, it's OBVIOUS that there needs to be a wee bit more "controlling" going on .

BECAUSE. YOU. REFUSE! TO. CONTROL. YOURSELVES.

p.s. we have laws in place to control our 1st admendment rights as well cause some of us cant figure out how to use them right either.

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/08/sixth_circuit_a.htm

"The advantage of being armed... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26. )

Tried and failed.

For 10 years we had a ban that did NOTHING (nada, zippo zero) to curb crime. Since it sunset, crime has gone down.

If you really want to help, do something that will help, not something that looks good, but is meaningless.

Hey Gordan,

In May 18, 1927, Andrew Kehoe dynamited the new consolidated school in Bath, Michigan killing 45. Last I checked, dynamite possession was highly restricted.

What the fuck would you do to stop that dick head?

Banning guns in an effort to stop violence is liberal backwards ignorant thinking, and is a knee jerk response to a tragedy.

It's dipshits like you that think they know it all. Look at the FACTS, and not your emotions. Buying on emotion is stupid, making laws on emotion is more stupid.

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Gordan,
>
> In May 18, 1927, Andrew Kehoe dynamited the new
> consolidated school in Bath, Michigan killing 45.
> Last I checked, dynamite possession was highly
> restricted.
>
> What the fuck would you do to stop that dick
> head?
>
> Banning guns in an effort to stop violence is
> liberal backwards ignorant thinking, and is a knee
> jerk response to a tragedy.
>
> It's dipshits like you that think they know it
> all. Look at the FACTS, and not your emotions.
> Buying on emotion is stupid, making laws on
> emotion is more stupid.

With your analogy everyone should access to nuclear weapons.

Way to go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> With your analogy everyone should access to
> nuclear weapons.

I didn't say that ma'am. I'll explain it so even you can understand.


An ban on firearms, which are currently legal will not prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook, ever. The only people that are effected by a ban of that nature will be the law abiding citizens. Just because you take one type of gun, then all guns, doesn't mean people won't get hurt. Does the name Timothy McVeigh mean anything to you?

I kept the words small so you could understand....

@Bill - soooooooooooooo +1

ppl banning guns isnt gonna stop the prob. a new law isnt going to make guns disappear.

gun owners have to change the culture of gun ownership themselves

only when gun owners OWE UP TO THE RESPONSIBILITY of PROPERgun ownership (i.e. security and safety of the firearm when it is not in use) as well as when gun dealers take the sale of firearms seriously (actually bother to file paperwork) as well as when gun owners take the trading of firearms seriously (quit loaning cousin zeke the rifle) will we see a change in gun crime in this country.....................

Word the street is Blue Ridge Arsenal sold an AR-15 for 4K yesterday, Yikes!

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Bill - soooooooooooooo +1
>
> ppl banning guns isnt gonna stop the prob. a new
> law isnt going to make guns disappear.
>
> gun owners have to change the culture of gun
> ownership themselves
>
> only when gun owners OWE UP TO THE RESPONSIBILITY
> of PROPERgun ownership (i.e. security and
> safety of the firearm when it is not in use) as
> well as when gun dealers take the sale of firearms
> seriously (actually bother to file paperwork) as
> well as when gun owners take the trading of
> firearms seriously (quit loaning cousin zeke the
> rifle) will we see a change in gun crime in this
> country.....................

Agreed to some extent. Dealers do file paperwork, even clerical failures (i' not dotted) have caused dealers to lose license. They aren't the problem.

My point is, even if guns went poof today, sick people will find a way. Sadly there is no way to 100% someone hell bent on destruction from doing it. Gun bans don't work, registrations don't work, none of it will work all of the time.

What will help (help, not prevent 100%) is caring for our mentally ill to lessen the problem. For the unpreventable times when things do go wrong, we need to arm our first responders (people like you, me, teachers, students etc) so we can respond to bad actors.

You can't stop everything, so you have to be able to respond. Intelligent people know that.

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way to go Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > With your analogy everyone should access to
> > nuclear weapons.
>
> I didn't say that ma'am. I'll explain it so even
> you can understand.
>
>
> An ban on firearms, which are currently legal will
> not prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook, ever. The
> only people that are effected by a ban of that
> nature will be the law abiding citizens. Just
> because you take one type of gun, then all guns,
> doesn't mean people won't get hurt. Does the name
> Timothy McVeigh mean anything to you?
>
> I kept the words small so you could understand....

Another gun groupie thinking he can hide behind the 2nd amendment. And the law abiding citizen is bullshit. Fucking your wife's mouth and exceeding the posted speed limit is breaking the law in Virginia.
But my question is why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
Are you a fanatic psychopath or a wannabe who has watched to many war movies.

Just another merc wannabe Wrote:
> Another gun groupie thinking he can hide behind
> the 2nd amendment. And the law abiding citizen is
> bullshit. Fucking your wife's mouth and exceeding
> the posted speed limit is breaking the law in
> Virginia.
> But my question is why do you need a semi
> automatic assault rifle?
> Are you a fanatic psychopath or a wannabe who has
> watched to many war movies.

I will be glad to use your example.

Is fucking their wife's mouth, and speeding reason to ban cars? Of course not. People speed every day. The answer to speeding is better law enforcement. If you speed too frequently, they take away their license. That doesn't prevent you from driving, but ups the anti when you get pulled over again, eventually leading to your arrest and incarceration.

When people do things that are bad enough (felonies), they are no longer allowed to be in possession of firearms. That doesn't keep them from getting them, but it ups the anti when they get caught with them again.

Before I can answer your question about an assault rifle, what exactly is an assault rifle?

Research will show you that this term refers to cosmetic features of a firearm. These are functionally identical to other firearms, but "look" different. These cosmetic differences usually only aid in it's use in certain situations.

In the end, an assault rifle is a term that has no true definition, but is like the word "beautiful". You and I see beauty in different ways don't we?

Wow, NRA wants a national database of mentally ill people - NAZIs.

Total failure to understand mental illness.

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just another merc wannabe Wrote:
> > Another gun groupie thinking he can hide behind
> > the 2nd amendment. And the law abiding citizen
> is
> > bullshit. Fucking your wife's mouth and
> exceeding
> > the posted speed limit is breaking the law in
> > Virginia.
> > But my question is why do you need a semi
> > automatic assault rifle?
> > Are you a fanatic psychopath or a wannabe who
> has
> > watched to many war movies.
>
> I will be glad to use your example.
>
> Is fucking their wife's mouth, and speeding reason
> to ban cars? Of course not. People speed every
> day. The answer to speeding is better law
> enforcement. If you speed too frequently, they
> take away their license. That doesn't prevent you
> from driving, but ups the anti when you get pulled
> over again, eventually leading to your arrest and
> incarceration.
>
> When people do things that are bad enough
> (felonies), they are no longer allowed to be in
> possession of firearms. That doesn't keep them
> from getting them, but it ups the anti when they
> get caught with them again.
>
> Before I can answer your question about an assault
> rifle, what exactly is an assault rifle?
>
> Research will show you that this term refers to
> cosmetic features of a firearm. These are
> functionally identical to other firearms, but
> "look" different. These cosmetic differences
> usually only aid in it's use in certain
> situations.
>
> In the end, an assault rifle is a term that has no
> true definition, but is like the word "beautiful".
> You and I see beauty in different ways don't we?

I'll help you understand, let's make this simple. Ban semi-automatic firearms for civilian use.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll help you understand, let's make this simple.
> Ban semi-automatic firearms for civilian use.


and when there is a mall shooting with a bolt action rifle or pump shotgun, then what?

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just another merc wannabe Wrote:
> > Another gun groupie thinking he can hide behind
> > the 2nd amendment. And the law abiding citizen
> is
> > bullshit. Fucking your wife's mouth and
> exceeding
> > the posted speed limit is breaking the law in
> > Virginia.
> > But my question is why do you need a semi
> > automatic assault rifle?
> > Are you a fanatic psychopath or a wannabe who
> has
> > watched to many war movies.
>
> I will be glad to use your example.
>
> Is fucking their wife's mouth, and speeding reason
> to ban cars? Of course not. People speed every
> day. The answer to speeding is better law
> enforcement. If you speed too frequently, they
> take away their license. That doesn't prevent you
> from driving, but ups the anti when you get pulled
> over again, eventually leading to your arrest and
> incarceration.
>
> When people do things that are bad enough
> (felonies), they are no longer allowed to be in
> possession of firearms. That doesn't keep them
> from getting them, but it ups the anti when they
> get caught with them again.
>
> Before I can answer your question about an assault
> rifle, what exactly is an assault rifle?
>
> Research will show you that this term refers to
> cosmetic features of a firearm. These are
> functionally identical to other firearms, but
> "look" different. These cosmetic differences
> usually only aid in it's use in certain
> situations.
>
> In the end, an assault rifle is a term that has no
> true definition, but is like the word "beautiful".
> You and I see beauty in different ways don't we?



I never thought of M-16 as a object of beauty. It was just a weapon that I used to ruin some guys named Charlie day.
Did not come back wanting one.
An object of beauty to me is the underfed female form.
I guess guns make you a man.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, NRA wants a national database of mentally ill
> people - NAZIs.
>
> Total failure to understand mental illness.


You say total failure, but wasn't it the Nazi's that took away all the firearms from civilians before they started killing many of them?

So you will agree that taking guns from civilians would be as egregious.

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow, NRA wants a national database of mentally
> ill
> > people - NAZIs.
> >
> > Total failure to understand mental illness.
>
>
> You say total failure, but wasn't it the Nazi's
> that took away all the firearms from civilians
> before they started killing many of them?
>
> So you will agree that taking guns from civilians
> would be as egregious.

Fucking paranoid? No one is going to take your precious guns.
Just restrict some weapons that tv wacthing wannabes feel they need to pocess.
No one needs semi auto assault carbines for home defense, shooting paper or squirrels. Then again only mental cases would want to own one.

President Obama can't be both a Communist and a Nazi.
Nazis didn't like Jews or Blacks if my history serves me correctly.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-
>
> I'll help you understand, let's make this simple.
> Ban semi-automatic firearms for civilian use.


Let's ban the filth coming out of Hollywood like Saw 1-4 and Django. Let's ban violent video games. Let's ban any songs that glorify killing or raping. It's always simple to find things to ban once you start down that road. Ask Bloomberg in NY, who's banning soft drink cups and french fies.

Make love, Not war. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess guns make you a man.

I guess having a cunt makes your wife and mother a prostitute...

Just following your logic.

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow, NRA wants a national database of mentally
> ill
> > people - NAZIs.
> >
> > Total failure to understand mental illness.
>
>
> You say total failure, but wasn't it the Nazi's
> that took away all the firearms from civilians
> before they started killing many of them?
>
> So you will agree that taking guns from civilians
> would be as egregious.

More straw men arguments from you and the NRA to deflect and dodge.

Civilians don't need semi-automatic, high velocity round weapons for protection. A shotgun is more than enough firepower to protect a home. One only needs a range of roughly 30 yards of accuracy for personal protection. High-velocity rounds go for a mile unobstructed if you miss your target, and can easily kill someone unintended that far away.

And bolt-action firearms also possess easily enough firepower and efficiency of use for hunting. Hell, people even now are satisfied with bows and arrows for hunting, there's plenty of bowhunters - why not restrict hunters to bows only?

Going to war? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one needs semi auto assault carbines for home
> defense, shooting paper or squirrels. Then again
> only mental cases would want to own one.

Check your history. There is nothing in the constitution about squirrels or paper punching.

A short history on the second amendment:
* The concept behind the United States is that the centralized federal government has limited power over the people (as opposed to the dictatorships from which we came)

* The Second Amendment states that in order to maintain a free state, the people must retain the right to keep and bear arms. The presence of armed citizens is what keeps the government "honest". No government would be foolish enough to impose a dictatorship on people who have the ability to resist.

* The Second Amendment does not grant us this right. This right already existed. The Second Amendment merely prevents the government from infringing on it.


So that's who needs a semi auto assault(what ever that means) carbines

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civilians don't need semi-automatic, high velocity
> round weapons for protection. A shotgun is more
> than enough firepower to protect a home.

Says who? You maybe, but who are you to make that determination.


> One only
> needs a range of roughly 30 yards of accuracy for
> personal protection. High-velocity rounds go for a
> mile unobstructed if you miss your target, and can
> easily kill someone unintended that far away.

See my post below on what the second amendment was created to prevent.


> And bolt-action firearms also possess easily
> enough firepower and efficiency of use for
> hunting. Hell, people even now are satisfied with
> bows and arrows for hunting, there's plenty of
> bowhunters - why not restrict hunters to bows
> only?

So I guess you would have us go back to cooking with wood because there is a rare instance of natural gas explosions?

"Straw man" or not, Sandy hook was horrible, so are a lot of things. There are many more problems killing MANY, MANY more people every day that we should be putting our efforts towards rather than the < .5% problem of mass shootings.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> More straw men arguments from you and the NRA to
> deflect and dodge.
>
> Civilians don't need semi-automatic, high velocity
> round weapons for protection. A shotgun is more
> than enough firepower to protect a home. One only
> needs a range of roughly 30 yards of accuracy for
> personal protection. High-velocity rounds go for a
> mile unobstructed if you miss your target, and can
> easily kill someone unintended that far away.
>
> And bolt-action firearms also possess easily
> enough firepower and efficiency of use for
> hunting. Hell, people even now are satisfied with
> bows and arrows for hunting, there's plenty of
> bowhunters - why not restrict hunters to bows
> only?


When the criminals don't have semi-automatic weapons, then perhaps a discussion on the need for law-abiding private civilians to also own them should be held. Only a fool believes that criminals don't have them, won't use them and that the police are going to be there to protect you if that happens.

Cho killed 32 with two small caliber handguns at Va. Tech. You're wrong.

Berd, I respect yr points - but I gotta agree with Bill and Less on this one.

Assualt ban wouldnt have stopped this. Dude would have just used the pistols.

Only way this could have been truly prevented is if "moms" had done her job as
a) a parent (protecting her child from harm - total FAIL on that one, lady - maybe if yr boy is mentally unstable, you should keep him AWAY fom firearms...................................Bitch.)
b) a gunowner (securing her weapon properly when not in use)
c) a regular human being (you know, simply thinking about her community as a WHOLE when she is bringing guns into it.

Anyways, "moms" dropped the ball. And that's what needs to change - not the law but ppl's attitudes towards guns.

THE SECOND ADMENDMENT IS A RESPONSIBILTY WAY MORE THAN IT IS "JUST" A RIGHT................

maybe oneday hillbillies will stop pissing all over the Constituion and their Nation and act maybe a little more responsible with their Freedoms. (yeah, sure Gordo)

LoLz

Armed guards in schools. We are most definitley the dumbest fucking nation to ever exsist. Stupid Americans will buy into anything nowdays.
To much TV. Get the fuck outta the house and go play.
"If one moron has a gun then you must arm all morons.
Or it isn't good sport"

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berd, I respect yr points - but I gotta agree with
> Bill and Less on this one.
>
> Assualt ban wouldnt have stopped this. Dude would
> have just used the pistols.
>
> Only way this could have been truly prevented is
> if "moms" had done her job as
> a) a parent (protecting her child from harm -
> total FAIL on that one, lady - maybe if yr boy is
> mentally unstable, you should keep him AWAY fom
> firearms...................................Bitch.)
>
> b) a gunowner (securing her weapon properly when
> not in use)
> c) a regular human being (you know, simply
> thinking about her community as a WHOLE when she
> is bringing guns into it.
>
> Anyways, "moms" dropped the ball. And that's what
> needs to change - not the law but ppl's attitudes
> towards guns.
>
> THE SECOND ADMENDMENT IS A RESPONSIBILTY WAY
> MORE THAN IT IS "JUST" A
> RIGHT................
>
> maybe oneday hillbillies will stop pissing all
> over the Constituion and their Nation and act
> maybe a little more responsible with their
> Freedoms. (yeah, sure Gordo)
>
> LoLz

Gordon, we'll respectfully disagree then. But I just want to make an important distinction on firearms. I propose a ban on semi-automatics. The term 'Assault' is being misused, as is 'clip', in the public debate. The AR-15, among many others, is a semi-automatic firearm. I'm sure you already know the difference between 'clip' and 'magazine'.

I chuckle when NRA "A" rated politicians use the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'.

Wounded Knee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> damuri ajashi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > If the second amendment were really about the
> > people's ability to revolt, then the second
> > amendment would protect our rights to keep
> surface
> > to air missiles and tankbusters or do you think
> > you can beat back the 3rd infantry division
> with
> > your AR-15s?
>
>
> And what makes you think that they'd all be on one
> side? Experience says that's not the way that
> such things usually work.
>
>
> >
> > The second amendment isn't the fusebox of our
> > democracy, Its largely a vestige of the infancy
> of
> > our nation.
>
>
> Sorry, SCOTUS opinion trumps your opinion. Read
> Heller.

So how does Heller liken the second amendment to a fusebox for democracy?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Less - wow..............comparing 2010 America
> with 1928 Germany.
>
> Um, I take it you werent around in the 80s.
> Well, I was so I can tell you WE HAD NO WORLD WAR
> THEN! We havent been denied the right to sign any
> treaty last I check.......
>
> No socialist revolution, no hyperinflation, nada.
> Different ppls and different times, different
> situation, my friend.
>
> yes, "Gun Control" is about controlling us. YOU
> WANT TO KNOW WHY!?!? BECAUSE SOME OF Y'ALL WANT
> TO KILL MY CHILDREN AS THEY SIT IN THE
> SCHOOL?!?!?!?!
>
> FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!
>
> I tell you what, gunnuts - you police yourselves
> and control your fucking guns better, we wont be
> having this discussion, will we?
>
> You cry "2nd admendment" over and over because
> it's your right - but still, most of y'all so
> coward to owe up to SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY part
> of that right - you know, the part were you dont
> let your guns kill our children.
>
> So yeah, until y'all quit fucking that part of it
> up, then yes, it's OBVIOUS that there needs to be
> a wee bit more "controlling" going on .
>
> BECAUSE. YOU. REFUSE! TO. CONTROL. YOURSELVES.
>
> p.s. we have laws in place to control our 1st
> admendment rights as well cause some of us cant
> figure out how to use them right either.
>
> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/08/sixth
> _circuit_a.htm


Nothing you just said had any sense of truth. Now you blame gun owners for the act of a murderer.

How many things are you going to blame before you blame the piece of shit that shot those kids?

This is the problem with society. Nothing is every anyone elses fault. Its always that some object forced them to do it or societies fault. Personal responsibility is completely gone thanks to liberals.

Clearly you have no understanding of gun laws. Theres more laws in place restricting the 2nd amendment than the first by far. Only in your mind are gun stores selling guns to anyone that walks in the door


Please again tell me what law would have prevented the shooting.

How has banning drugs worked out.

Why do you ignore the fact that countless laws were broken in the shooting yet somehow 1 more law would have made the shooter think oh man I dont want to break the law.

U R Stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Moron, the Taliban do just fine beating back
> the 3rd division with just a rusty Chinese made
> Norinco AK-47 and a goat. So yes, my AR-15 will
> do just fine.

Horseshit.

Afghanistan has been in a state of perpetual war since the 1970's, if a tank came rolling into your neighborhod, you would shit your pants or end up getting yourself killed.

We tried civil war once and you know how that worked out for the rebels?

For the record I own 7 guns (including two I bought for my wife). An AK-47, AR-15, glock 9mm, taurus judge, SW 357 magnum, 12 gauge, and a .22 Marlin rifle. For me they are purely for sport and self defense. There are much better ways to overthrow the government in a democracy, in fact the constitution affords us an opportunity to do so every two years.

Bill S. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So I guess you would have us go back to cooking
> with wood because there is a rare instance of
> natural gas explosions?

Another straw man from you - they never cease from your types. Cooking is a utility for eating - basic human function, semi-automatic firearms are not. Totally different level of necessity, but you're too lazy to think this out.


> "Straw man" or not, Sandy hook was horrible, so
> are a lot of things. There are many more problems
> killing MANY, MANY more people every day that we
> should be putting our efforts towards rather than
> the < .5% problem of mass shootings.

Your straw men arguments are one of the reasons why people who think like you will ultimately be ignored in time. You have nothing of value to offer towards problem solving.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2012 05:28PM by Berdhuis.

@Berd - LoLz - my chuckle comes from their old standby "guns dont kill ppl"

@Damuri Ajashi - sooooooooooooooo +1, bro!!!

@just - "moms" had an unstable person in a house with weaponry that he was able to access. That's neglect and YES I blame her for this shit. I put the blame where it lays, straight on her bitchass...........
Dunno why yr talking about "society" having problems. You act as if YOU are not part of "society" - what, you think you are better than the rest of us? Whateves.
And then you go ahead and bring up "personal responsibility"? Well, like I said before, if ppl like "moms" thought more about their neighbors and community, maybe they would store their guns away securly with trigger locks when not in use - that way they can still be STUPID AS SHIT and allow their crazy relatives in the house all they want and EVERYBODY's happy. Bitch triggerlocks her guns, hides key away, and her ass is watching Kitchen Nightmares.
How hard is that? Personal Responsibility when you own a firearm, REMEMBERING that it can harm others even while you are away from it (blows my mind that some ppl are still so stupid they cant get this..............). Because that bitch CHOOSE to love her guns so much, but NOT THINK about what could happen if they EVER left her possesion - that lack of thinking is why TWENTY of her neighbors are going to be crying Tuesday morning - heck, their hearts tore out for all time, isnt it? ha ha to them I guess they should have armed their kids - that's what NRA will tell them, right?
Anywho,you can go "laws laws laws" til yr blue in the face. Me? I'm gonna focus on the IGNORANT CULTURE of gun owners who REFUSE to even try to think how much gun crime in this Nation could be reduced if they themselves took on some more personal responsiblity and triggerlocked their guns when not in use, and simple hide the key away until they want to use their guns...............

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> @just - "moms" had an unstable person in a house
> with weaponry that he was able to access. That's
> neglect and YES I blame her for this shit. I put
> the blame where it lays, straight on her
> bitchass...........
> Dunno why yr talking about "society" having
> problems. You act as if YOU are not part of
> "society" - what, you think you are better than
> the rest of us? Whateves.
> And then you go ahead and bring up "personal
> responsibility"? Well, like I said before, if ppl
> like "moms" thought more about their neighbors and
> community, maybe they would store their guns away
> securly with trigger locks when not in use - that
> way they can still be STUPID AS SHIT and
> allow their crazy relatives in the house all they
> want and EVERYBODY's happy. Bitch triggerlocks
> her guns, hides key away, and her ass is watching
> Kitchen Nightmares.
> How hard is that? Personal Responsibility when
> you own a firearm, REMEMBERING that it can harm
> others even while you are away from it (blows my
> mind that some ppl are still so stupid they cant
> get this..............). Because that bitch
> CHOOSE to love her guns so much, but NOT THINK
> about what could happen if they EVER left her
> possesion - that lack of thinking is why TWENTY of
> her neighbors are going to be crying Tuesday
> morning - heck, their hearts tore out for all
> time, isnt it? ha ha to them I guess they should
> have armed their kids - that's what NRA will tell
> them, right?
> Anywho,you can go "laws laws laws" til yr blue in
> the face. Me? I'm gonna focus on the IGNORANT
> CULTURE of gun owners who REFUSE to even try to
> think how much gun crime in this Nation could be
> reduced if they themselves took on some more
> personal responsiblity and triggerlocked their
> guns when not in use, and simple hide the key away
> until they want to use their guns...............

Again you blame things other than the person who did it. It doesnt matter if you get given a room full of every weapon on earth unless youre evil you wont kill people wiith it. And no those kids arent dead because she had guns theyre dead because her son went on a murdering rampage and no one had any ability to stop him since the closest gun was a 20 minute police response time away.

You demonstrated exactly what Im talking about society making excuses for people. Its never the killers fault or the kids fault for bad grades the test must be biased or it must be the weapon.

Again with the trigger lock bs, yea a pad lock would have stopped that. Good thing lock picks or bolt cutters dont exist to get around those.

¥



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2018 11:14PM by Wayfarer.

Serve your country Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All assualt rifles should be banned. Period.
> I take offense to AK 47s. I was shot by one 42
> years ago. Any American that would own one is
> disgrace to this country.
> For home defense? That's stupid.

And from your post I'd guess you were shot, not fatally, in the head and it gave you just enough brain damage to make you stupid.

A sad thread Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any weapon that can hold a large amount of
> bullets.
>
> Personally, 10 round magazines should be the only
> ones manufactured for civilian use. For any gun.

So my 9mm with 17-rd mags is now an assault weapon?

Hey guys, OP here. Any site that has that SKS you recommended? Also, I already have 2 handguns, going to buy the extended clips for them as well before they ban those too. I wasn't going to get a rifle for a while but since they are being banned I jumped on the low end M4 and AK-47 I was talking about. Anyone ever try a SU-22 or a MIG 22 Standard?

Hey Moron, what makes you think there are not millions of Americans with years of combat experience that won't shit their pants. You can teach a child to effectively use an assault rifle (a real automatic one) in less than two hours. That's something they do all the time in that shithole you are original from.

But, of course, you avoided the original argument, which is that the $80 AK-47 does just fine against the $Trillion US Army in Iraq AND Aghanistan. Notice that Iraq hasn't been in a constant state of war since the 1970s. Now go back to sucking a dick moron.

Damuri Ajashi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U R Stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Moron, the Taliban do just fine beating
> back
> > the 3rd division with just a rusty Chinese made
> > Norinco AK-47 and a goat. So yes, my AR-15
> will
> > do just fine.
>
> Horseshit.
>
> Afghanistan has been in a state of perpetual war
> since the 1970's, if a tank came rolling into your
> neighborhod, you would shit your pants or end up
> getting yourself killed.
>
> We tried civil war once and you know how that
> worked out for the rebels?
>
> For the record I own 7 guns (including two I
> bought for my wife). An AK-47, AR-15, glock 9mm,
> taurus judge, SW 357 magnum, 12 gauge, and a .22
> Marlin rifle. For me they are purely for sport
> and self defense. There are much better ways to
> overthrow the government in a democracy, in fact
> the constitution affords us an opportunity to do
> so every two years.

@Damuri Ajashi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Moron, what makes you think there are not
> millions of Americans with years of combat
> experience that won't shit their pants. You can
> teach a child to effectively use an assault rifle
> (a real automatic one) in less than two hours.
> That's something they do all the time in that
> shithole you are original from.
>
> But, of course, you avoided the original argument,
> which is that the $80 AK-47 does just fine against
> the $Trillion US Army in Iraq AND Aghanistan.
> Notice that Iraq hasn't been in a constant state
> of war since the 1970s. Now go back to sucking a
> dick moron.



If youre going to treat people like shit at least be correct which you arent.

Its the IEDs, RPGs, Grenades doing most of the damage. They arent doing just fine with AKs which is why they never go toe to toe with the miliitary.

@Damuri Ajusshi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Moron, what makes you think there are not
> millions of Americans with years of combat
> experience that won't shit their pants. You can
> teach a child to effectively use an assault rifle
> (a real automatic one) in less than two hours.
> That's something they do all the time in that
> shithole you are original from.
>
> But, of course, you avoided the original argument,
> which is that the $80 AK-47 does just fine against
> the $Trillion US Army in Iraq AND Afghanistan.
> Notice that Iraq hasn't been in a constant state
> of war since the 1970s. Now go back to sucking a
> dick moron.
>
> Damuri Ajusshi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > U R Stupid Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey Moron, the Taliban do just fine beating
> > back
> > > the 3rd division with just a rusty Chinese
> made
> > > Norinco AK-47 and a goat. So yes, my AR-15
> > will
> > > do just fine.
> >
> > Horseshit.
> >
> > Afghanistan has been in a state of perpetual
> war
> > since the 1970's, if a tank came rolling into
> your
> > neighborhood, you would shit your pants or end
> up
> > getting yourself killed.
> >
> > We tried civil war once and you know how that
> > worked out for the rebels?
> >
> > For the record I own 7 guns (including two I
> > bought for my wife). An AK-47, AR-15, glock
> 9mm,
> > taurus judge, SW 357 magnum, 12 gauge, and a
> .22
> > Marlin rifle. For me they are purely for sport
> > and self defense. There are much better ways
> to
> > overthrow the government in a democracy, in
> fact
> > the constitution affords us an opportunity to
> do
> > so every two years.

Thank Allah that you included the constitution in your post.
Getting a little concerned.
Merry Christmas

Wrong, not IED, RPG or Grenades in this video. Just pure AKs and RPKs.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/27/soldier-afghanistan-helmet-cam-draws-fire_n_1920141.html


just a normal gun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Damuri Ajashi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Moron, what makes you think there are not
> > millions of Americans with years of combat
> > experience that won't shit their pants. You
> can
> > teach a child to effectively use an assault
> rifle
> > (a real automatic one) in less than two hours.
> > That's something they do all the time in that
> > shithole you are original from.
> >
> > But, of course, you avoided the original
> argument,
> > which is that the $80 AK-47 does just fine
> against
> > the $Trillion US Army in Iraq AND Aghanistan.
> > Notice that Iraq hasn't been in a constant
> state
> > of war since the 1970s. Now go back to sucking
> a
> > dick moron.
>
>
>
> If youre going to treat people like shit at least
> be correct which you arent.
>
> Its the IEDs, RPGs, Grenades doing most of the
> damage. They arent doing just fine with AKs which
> is why they never go toe to toe with the
> miliitary.

^^^^^

That video looks like going toe to toe with the US military to me.

@just a normal gun: so let's follow your logic here. Only the person pulling the trigger should be responsible for a crime? So under that thinking, if one gives a person a handgun and tells them to kill someone, and they do it, that original person has no responsibility as they did not kill them, do I have that correct, Kingpin?

LISTEN CAREFULLY, DUMBASS as I did not think you were truly this slow as I would have to explain it this carefully

1) it is OBVIOUS that the son is an asshole for doing what he did. There is no need for any further debate on the subject. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE ON THE FUCKING PLANET TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THIS! THAT IS WHY I HAVE NOT BOTHERED DISCUSSING HIM!

2) You demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about - stereotypical gun nut acting like an selfish little prick when asked to secure their weapons a little more. Always being allegedly so grateful for the RIGHT that their Nation gives them, but telling their Nation FUCK YOU when it asks for a little more RESPONSIBILITY in return. Dunno why you think trigger locks are such a big deal. But I do know using a pair of lock picks or bolt cutters on a gun is gonna be REALLY tough, especially if you are pissed the fuck off.

3) that "bolt cutter" example you used was really kinda douchey. That's kind of like saying DUI laws are dumb since drunks will be on the road anyway so why bother arresting one? Heck since drunks still drive on the road, why even bother doing anything to stop them? I mean seriously, yo................you gotta be better than that. It's people like you who dont make their bed thinking it will just get messy again the next day LoLz

4) I was really throwing trigger locks out there as an alternative to gun bans. Just was my idea as a possible part of a solution to all this. Nobody has one magic answer to all this but dammit, we gotta stop with all the arguing and come up with solutions NOW, not later.

hey gordonblvd, i have a question for you. you seem to do alot of spouting off at the mouth, typical of a gun hater. let me ask you something. do you think that the bigger issue in this country is not guns, but the problems with the mental health system dealing with these kinds of people? if you dont think so, you need to do some police ride alongs. maybe then you will see how people with mental issues are dealt with. guns arent the problem here. yeah, mom didnt have them locked up. if that would have prevented it, it is to be debated. kid prob would have known where the keys were, and been able to gain access to them after he stabbed his mom with a knife, or hit her with a baseball bat....you choose the murder weapon. i deal with people everyday who are responsible gun owners, and i also deal with people with severe mental issues. our mental health system is the problem, because there is no way to deal with these people. we put them away at the hospital for a few days, then they are back out amoung society. like i said, you need to ride with a police officer a few times, and you will see how many mental people there are out there. i deal with these subject day in and day out, and i know a few that would not surprise me if they did the samething. the gun owners are not the ones im worried about.

Not all firearms that the US government uses is allowed in the hands of private citizens. That's gun control. You don't see anyone using .50 cal machine guns to commit crimes or go hunting or target practicing, or accidentally shooting their children at nearly the rate of other types of firearms. Gun control works, but not yet well enough.

Gun control simply needs to be expanded to ban the use of all machine guns and semi-automatics by private citizens, too, with no exceptions. It will work. Already is working, albeit incompletely, for the machine gun.

Expand gun control.

@ berhuis, automatic guns arent the problem. when was the last time a mass shooter used a fully auto gun? none of these killers had one. ive met a few people that owned full auto guns. everyone of them kept them in a vault so they could not be stolen. the full auto guns used in crimes, usually have been altered from semi auto to full auto. and ban semi auto's as well? so your saying ban all guns then. every handgun would be banned except revolvers, bolt action guns, and pump shotguns. guess shotguns cant be used to kill people either. sorry, but you are pretty stupid if you think other types of guns wouldnt be used if the ones you want banned are. if muzzleloading guns were the only thing allowed, someone would use them to kill people regardless. your just another gun hater talking out of his ass, instead of seeing the big picture. read the post above yours, then maybe you'll get it.

Debate all you want. Obama just has to sign one of his 900 plus executive orders and done assualt weaoons gone. The question is how far will he reach. Ban auto-matic hand guns? Turn in all assualt weapons? I have always believed that Obama would be more then proud to be the first President to disarm America.

they wont ban full auto, suppressors, or short barrel rifle and shotguns. you know why, the feds get $200 for each one of those items when they are registered, it provides federal jobs, and those arent the guns being used in these crimes. if they ban those items, they will lose millions of dollars a year. hasnt obama already put us in enough debt. hold on for the next four years, its only going to get worse until someone gets elected to unfuck what he will do.

u idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ berhuis, automatic guns arent the problem. when
> was the last time a mass shooter used a fully auto
> gun? none of these killers had one.

That's because they are banned or severely restricted. YOU PROVE MY POINT - THANK YOU!

ive met a few
> people that owned full auto guns. everyone of them
> kept them in a vault so they could not be stolen.
> the full auto guns used in crimes, usually have
> been altered from semi auto to full auto. and ban
> semi auto's as well? so your saying ban all guns
> then. every handgun would be banned except
> revolvers, bolt action guns, and pump shotguns.
> guess shotguns cant be used to kill people either.
> sorry, but you are pretty stupid if you think
> other types of guns wouldnt be used if the ones
> you want banned are. if muzzleloading guns were
> the only thing allowed, someone would use them to
> kill people regardless.

Number of those killed or injured would be reduced - less rounds fired equals less deaths - simple math, there. BUT YOU ALREADY PROVED MY POINT!

> your just another gun hater talking out of his ass, instead of seeing
> the big picture. read the post above yours, then
> maybe you'll get it.

YOU PROVED MY POINT! Read your own post.

Let me help you here, the alias you're using reflects more about yourself than others. Good luck out there.

What do you need 17 rounds for? Too lazy to reload after 6-8 rounds at the range? We need reloading to slow mass murderers down. Sorry but if you are shooting around me at innocents and Im unarmed I will wait till you are reloading then Im kicking your ass, and not just a little Im gonna hurt you real bad.

That is the point, everyone can enjoy using their toy firearms with small clips. What is the rush? Ammo is expensive so why not hone your skill rather than just spray ammo all over the place with high capacity mags?

There is no civilian need for high capacity mags. Period. If you wish to have your Constitutional rights be honest and agree to keep real combat weapons in a well regulated militia. Personally I think that was the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment and yes I think citizens should be allowed all kinds of combat weaponry in a civilian run and regulated militia. Combat weapons in trunks, closets and bowling bags - not so much.

17rds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you need 17 rounds for? Too lazy to
> reload after 6-8 rounds at the range? We need
> reloading to slow mass murderers down. Sorry but
> if you are shooting around me at innocents and Im
> unarmed I will wait till you are reloading then Im
> kicking your ass, and not just a little Im gonna
> hurt you real bad.
>
> That is the point, everyone can enjoy using their
> toy firearms with small clips. What is the rush?
> Ammo is expensive so why not hone your skill
> rather than just spray ammo all over the place
> with high capacity mags?
>
> There is no civilian need for high capacity mags.
> Period. If you wish to have your Constitutional
> rights be honest and agree to keep real combat
> weapons in a well regulated militia. Personally I
> think that was the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment
> and yes I think citizens should be allowed all
> kinds of combat weaponry in a civilian run and
> regulated militia. Combat weapons in trunks,
> closets and bowling bags - not so much.


I'm happy that i bought my 75 round drum, three 30 round mags for my AK 47 years ago..go eat a tofu hamburger.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @just a normal gun: so let's follow your logic
> here.



Sorry Gordo, per usual, you got lost right outta the gate. You're kids must really hate your sorry ass.

smoke em if you got em Wrote:
----------------------------
>
> I'm happy that i bought my 75 round drum, three 30
> round mags for my AK 47 years ago..go eat a tofu
> hamburger.

Bragging will get you somewhere

Sounds like you want to visit a school. Thanks for the notice.
It' on the net now.
Happy Holidays!

17rds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you need 17 rounds for? Too lazy to
> reload after 6-8 rounds at the range? We need
> reloading to slow mass murderers down. Sorry but
> if you are shooting around me at innocents and Im
> unarmed I will wait till you are reloading then Im
> kicking your ass, and not just a little Im gonna
> hurt you real bad.
>
> That is the point, everyone can enjoy using their
> toy firearms with small clips. What is the rush?
> Ammo is expensive so why not hone your skill
> rather than just spray ammo all over the place
> with high capacity mags?
>
> There is no civilian need for high capacity mags.
> Period. If you wish to have your Constitutional
> rights be honest and agree to keep real combat
> weapons in a well regulated militia. Personally I
> think that was the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment
> and yes I think citizens should be allowed all
> kinds of combat weaponry in a civilian run and
> regulated militia. Combat weapons in trunks,
> closets and bowling bags - not so much.


And how long do you think it takes to drop and sap a mag? Or to use a speed loader for a revolver for that matter. Magazine capacity bans are idiotic. It's a non-solution that's pointed to by people who have no clue because, as typical, they want a simple solution and that seems easy. The only time that it might matter would be in an all-out combat situation. In cases that are the subject of such bans where there are typically unopposed shooters it does absolutely nothing. In fact, it potentially increases reliability of access to more of their carried rounds.

And unfortunately your interpretation of the 'militia' clause of 2nd amendment has been ruled n/a by SCOTUS in Heller.

What sort of posts the mass killers were writing before they committed their grisly crimes? Magazine capacity? Type of assault weapon? Assaulting and insulting other posters?
Like the posters here. Please continue.

Quick Draw McGraw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 17rds Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you need 17 rounds for? Too lazy to
> > reload after 6-8 rounds at the range? We need
> > reloading to slow mass murderers down. Sorry
> but
> > if you are shooting around me at innocents and
> Im
> > unarmed I will wait till you are reloading then
> Im
> > kicking your ass, and not just a little Im
> gonna
> > hurt you real bad.
> >
> > That is the point, everyone can enjoy using
> their
> > toy firearms with small clips. What is the
> rush?
> > Ammo is expensive so why not hone your skill
> > rather than just spray ammo all over the place
> > with high capacity mags?
> >
> > There is no civilian need for high capacity
> mags.
> > Period. If you wish to have your
> Constitutional
> > rights be honest and agree to keep real combat
> > weapons in a well regulated militia. Personally
> I
> > think that was the whole idea of the 2nd
> Amendment
> > and yes I think citizens should be allowed all
> > kinds of combat weaponry in a civilian run and
> > regulated militia. Combat weapons in trunks,
> > closets and bowling bags - not so much.
>
>
> And how long do you think it takes to drop and sap
> a mag? Or to use a speed loader for a revolver
> for that matter. Magazine capacity bans are
> idiotic. It's a non-solution that's pointed to by
> people who have no clue because, as typical, they
> want a simple solution and that seems easy. The
> only time that it might matter would be in an
> all-out combat situation. In cases that are the
> subject of such bans where there are typically
> unopposed shooters it does absolutely nothing. In
> fact, it potentially increases reliability of
> access to more of their carried rounds.
>
> And unfortunately your interpretation of the
> 'militia' clause of 2nd amendment has been ruled
> n/a by SCOTUS in Heller.

Since most libs have never heard of Heller here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @just a normal gun: so let's follow your logic
> here. Only the person pulling the trigger should
> be responsible for a crime? So under that
> thinking, if one gives a person a handgun and
> tells them to kill someone, and they do it, that
> original person has no responsibility as they did
> not kill them, do I have that correct, Kingpin?

So if someone told you to jump off a cliff you would do it?

Can you also tell me who put those guns in his hand and told him to go kill people, thats right didnt happen.

> LISTEN CAREFULLY, DUMBASS as I did not think you
> were truly this slow as I would have to explain it
> this carefully

Thank god you dont think Im on your intellectual level, Id be worried if a child thought we were on the same level.

> 1) it is OBVIOUS that the son is an asshole for
> doing what he did. There is no need for any
> further debate on the subject. YOU ARE THE ONLY
> ONE ON THE FUCKING PLANET TOO STUPID TO REALIZE
> THIS! THAT IS WHY I HAVE NOT BOTHERED DISCUSSING
> HIM!

No you havent bothered discussing him because like all the political hacks on MSNBC who got excited when this happened because now they can push their anti gun agendas, you blame everything except the person who deserves all the blame.

> 2) You demonstrated exactly what I'm talking
> about - stereotypical gun nut acting like an
> selfish little prick when asked to secure their
> weapons a little more. Always being allegedly so
> grateful for the RIGHT that their Nation gives
> them, but telling their Nation FUCK YOU when it
> asks for a little more RESPONSIBILITY in return.
> Dunno why you think trigger locks are such a big
> deal. But I do know using a pair of lock picks or
> bolt cutters on a gun is gonna be REALLY tough,
> especially if you are pissed the fuck off.

It doesnt secure anything. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about with guns. Trigger locks are designed to prevent small children from shooting them selves nothing else.

Again the fact you think that cutting a metal wire running through the trigger with bolt cutters would be difficult on a gun shows how clueless you are.

Why is it everyone on that website that knows best about guns dont have the first clue how they work or what they are?

> 3) that "bolt cutter" example you used was really
> kinda douchey. That's kind of like saying DUI
> laws are dumb since drunks will be on the road
> anyway so why bother arresting one? Heck since
> drunks still drive on the road, why even bother
> doing anything to stop them? I mean seriously,
> yo................you gotta be better than that.
> It's people like you who dont make their bed
> thinking it will just get messy again the next day
> LoLz

"I mean seriously, yo......".

Intellectual powerhouse right here ladies and gentlemen. With such elegant writing im sold, why do anything that would actually make a difference when we can do feel good superficial things.



> 4) I was really throwing trigger locks out there
> as an alternative to gun bans. Just was my idea
> as a possible part of a solution to all this.
> Nobody has one magic answer to all this but
> dammit, we gotta stop with all the arguing and
> come up with solutions NOW, not later.

Its not a solution. There are no solutions. Stopping the bullshit gun banning arguments and working on things together would be a start. But we need to stop pretending like we can stop everything from happening.

Theres been murder since the start of time and will be till the end. Evil people will do evil things. From terrorist attacks to school shootings to Pearl Harbor, this is nothing new. All you can do is hope someone is their with the ability to stop them.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not all firearms that the US government uses is
> allowed in the hands of private citizens. That's
> gun control. You don't see anyone using .50 cal
> machine guns to commit crimes or go hunting or
> target practicing, or accidentally shooting their
> children at nearly the rate of other types of
> firearms. Gun control works, but not yet well
> enough.
>
> Gun control simply needs to be expanded to ban the
> use of all machine guns and semi-automatics by
> private citizens, too, with no exceptions. It will
> work. Already is working, albeit incompletely, for
> the machine gun.
>
> Expand gun control.

Another person with no clue.

Automatics would actually be less dangerous but they arent used in crimes, they cost far to much and require ATF full background checks.

Semi-automatic is a scary word to you isnt it. You do know that means if you pull the trigger one bullet is fired. Oh thats right you dont you saw the word automatic

^ @Read&Heed, the debate is ongoing. That's what is so cool about our constitution, it allows itself to be modified at the will of a substantial majority of the states.

And you never know what the SCOTUS will look like in a few years if this comes up again. The results could be quite different, especially given the current split.

just a normal gun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Semi-automatic is a scary word to you isnt it.
> You do know that means if you pull the trigger one
> bullet is fired. Oh thats right you dont you saw
> the word automatic

HA! Read some of my previous posts.

My military qualifications, fyi:
M16 A2 - Sharpshooter
M9 - Sharpshooter
M500 - Sharpshooter

Your presumptions make you look like an idiot - be careful out there. Merry Christmas, son!

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ @Read&Heed, the debate is ongoing. That's what
> is so cool about our constitution, it allows
> itself to be modified at the will of a substantial
> majority of the states.
>
> And you never know what the SCOTUS will look like
> in a few years if this comes up again. The results
> could be quite different, especially given the
> current split.


You don't understand how precedent works in the SCOTUS huh?

The ONLY way that you'll significantly change to rights to gun ownership now is through Constitutional amendment. Which is very unlikely to happen.

Until Barrack Hussein Oblama and Derelick Holder give up the goods on fast 'n furious high capacity magazines and well over 1000 assault rifles that they released into the hands of drug cartel thugs no American is safe without an assault rifle. After all those two government thugs can't expect to arm criminals and disarm law abiding citizens. Furthermore US citizens need assault rifles specifically so they won't be outgunned by the recipients of those assault rifles of fast'n furious. What happened to the congressional hearings? Oh yea, Oblama is drawing out the fiscal cliff mess to put off discussions on Fast'n furious and the Bengahzi murders cover-up. We all know that congress is just so swamped dealing with all of Oblamas scandals that patience is the key. He just wants to keep everything under the rug at least until after the inauguration. Hilary will then say due passage of time she just doesn't recall and Holder will then take further directives to stonewall. Isn't our new nation wonderful.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just a normal gun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Semi-automatic is a scary word to you isnt it.
> > You do know that means if you pull the trigger
> one
> > bullet is fired. Oh thats right you dont you
> saw
> > the word automatic
>
> HA! Read some of my previous posts.
>
> My military qualifications, fyi:
> M16 A2 - Sharpshooter
> M9 - Sharpshooter
> M500 - Sharpshooter
>
> Your presumptions make you look like an idiot - be
> careful out there. Merry Christmas, son!

Do you still purchase the trinkets at commissary? Back in "70 you took your qualification form to the counter to purchase. I never bothered and caught shit from the drill Sergeant. Why waste grass money

Those who live with guns will be blown to kingdom come by their deranged children. B.S., this would never happen. Yeah right. Live by the AK, you die by the AK.

Money for nothin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > HA! Read some of my previous posts.
> >
> > My military qualifications, fyi:
> > M16 A2 - Sharpshooter
> > M9 - Sharpshooter
> > M500 - Sharpshooter
> >
> > Your presumptions make you look like an idiot -
> be
> > careful out there. Merry Christmas, son!
>
> Do you still purchase the trinkets at commissary?
> Back in "70 you took your qualification form to
> the counter to purchase. I never bothered and
> caught shit from the drill Sergeant. Why waste
> grass money

Heh, heh, that's funny, and I'm guessing that's because they couldn't send you to 'Nam without a qual - so they gun decked more than a few folks, right?

No purchases for me, not that easy.

Merry Christmas, Soldier!

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just a normal gun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Semi-automatic is a scary word to you isnt it.
> > You do know that means if you pull the trigger
> one
> > bullet is fired. Oh thats right you dont you
> saw
> > the word automatic
>
> HA! Read some of my previous posts.
>
> My military qualifications, fyi:
> M16 A2 - Sharpshooter
> M9 - Sharpshooter
> M500 - Sharpshooter
>
> Your presumptions make you look like an idiot - be
> careful out there. Merry Christmas, son!

If that were true you should understand more about guns and the 2nd amendment then. A shooter in a school would do just as much damage with any type of gun besides maybe a full auto since they couldnt fire that accurately without training or practice.

If you can come up with a legitimate plan to rid the world of guns maybe youd have a point, till that time those cans can and will exist. But stopping citizen on citizen violence was never the main intention of the 2nd amendment anyway, preventing a government from becoming the dictatorship they just fought for their freedom from was. You wont do that with muskets in todays world. The simple fact that citizens are armed is enough to keep the government from going to extremes, the first thing dictators do is disarm their public

Merry Christmas to you too

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Money for nothin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Berdhuis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > HA! Read some of my previous posts.
> > >
> > > My military qualifications, fyi:
> > > M16 A2 - Sharpshooter
> > > M9 - Sharpshooter
> > > M500 - Sharpshooter
> > >
> > > Your presumptions make you look like an idiot
> -
> > be
> > > careful out there. Merry Christmas, son!
> >
> > Do you still purchase the trinkets at
> commissary?
> > Back in "70 you took your qualification form to
> > the counter to purchase. I never bothered and
> > caught shit from the drill Sergeant. Why waste
> > grass money
>
> Heh, heh, that's funny, and I'm guessing that's
> because they couldn't send you to 'Nam without a
> qual - so they gun decked more than a few folks,
> right?
>
> No purchases for me, not that easy.
>
> Merry Christmas, Soldier!

Spent a year in beautiful southeast asia.
As Forest Gump so eloquently stated "looking for a guy named Charlie"
Problem was Charlie usually found us first.
Shooting metal targets was easy on tank hill but Charlie was a very sneaky and tough bastard.
The $40 hazardous duty pay barely covered dope.
The only lottery I ever won/lost. And I didn't even enter.
Borrowed a Turkey from the officers mess and cooked it in a helmet on a deuce &1/2 on christmas. Tasted like shit but was good.
merry christmas
and
peace

And everyone who has served with the armed forces of the United States of America.
Thank you for the dedication and sacrifice for our liberty and freedom.
And to everyone else:
Fuck you.