armadamaster Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) Yep, and drafted in what, 1871? 1871. I hope you are joking because you're off by about 80 years. Take a look outside your window. Times, and firearms have changed since then. Then if they want guns banned, do it the right way. Change the Constitution through the Amendment process. Edited January 31, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 "Amendment II 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. " I don't see anywhere in this amendment where it says anything about a certain type of "ARMS" is acceptable to bear. If you read the Federalist Paper regarding this matter you would see that one of the reasons (not the only one) for this amendment was to give the public their own protection against their government. So therefor the Constitution gives us the "RIGHT" to own these weapons that you say there is no reason for anyone to own!!!!!!!!!!! Ding Ding Ding! We have the winner! Ownership of guns was encouraged by our founding fathers to prevent government tyranny. All one has to do is look through out history at which governments banned firearms and it results. Jews for the preservation of firearms made an excellent documentary. http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/index2.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Yep, and drafted in what, 1871? Take a look outside your window. Times, and firearms have changed since then. And realistically, if our government wanted to take over using our military against private citizens, it would probably be pretty easy. Some words for you: technology, intelligence, infrastructure, superior firepower. This isn't Red Dawn. Want to run and hide in the Hills? Sure. Those Predator drones Grumman develops could find you in a 300-mile radius in 30 seconds. New technology being developed will cut that to under 15 seconds. Lastly, most Americans aren't people who havn't grown up in domestic military conflict. They know little of combat tactics, etc. Sad? Definitely. Scary? You bet. But stop kidding yourselves, it's where we are. Your tax dollars at work. It is true our military has an abundance of high tech weapons, but most are only good for wiping out an indiscriminately group of people. Ask yourself about the problems our military faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of innocent people have been killed while attempting to eliminate “the bad guy”. If under the situation of government tyranny if it were to happen here, your innocence or lack of gun ownership is not necessarily going to save your butt. And most of our forefathers back when this country was formed had little to no military experience. I am glad they didn’t share your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 It is true our military has an abundance of high tech weapons, but most are only good for wiping out an indiscriminately group of people. Ask yourself about the problems our military faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of innocent people have been killed while attempting to eliminate “the bad guy”. If under the situation of government tyranny if it were to happen here, your innocence or lack of gun ownership is not necessarily going to save your butt. And most of our forefathers back when this country was formed had little to no military experience. I am glad they didn’t share your logic. It is true our military has an abundance of high tech weapons, but most are only good for wiping out an indiscriminately group of people. Ask yourself about the problems our military faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of innocent people have been killed while attempting to eliminate “the bad guy”. I'll be as tactful as possible.....YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!.....there are so many rules of engagement that massive civilian casualties are non-existent in Iraq...in fact we have probably lost more soldiers dur to those rules than we have killed innocent people..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) I'll be as tactful as possible.....YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!.....there are so many rules of engagement that massive civilian casualties are non-existent in Iraq...in fact we have probably lost more soldiers dur to those rules than we have killed innocent people..... Nappy there you go, full of shit again. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq Edited January 31, 2009 by sprinter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 The specific purpose of an exotic car, is not to kill someone efficiently. The assault rifle isn't designed to kill efficiently either, its designed to shoot fast, very fast, whether its intended purpose is to do some target practice or kill somebody is up to the user. Same with the sports car, its designed to be fast, very fast, whether or not its efficient design is for going for a joy ride or killing somebody is up to the user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 1871. I hope you are joking because you're off by about 80 years. Then if they want guns banned, do it the right way. Change the Constitution through the Amendment process. Yes, 1791 is the date. I stand corrected. And I don't have a problem with outlawing full-auto weapons through the amendment process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 The assault rifle isn't designed to kill efficiently either, its designed to shoot fast, very fast, whether its intended purpose is to do some target practice or kill somebody is up to the user. Same with the sports car, its designed to be fast, very fast, whether or not its efficient design is for going for a joy ride or killing somebody is up to the user. That's an interesting point of view. Consider the AK-47. Again, the most successful military rifle design in history. Designed by a soldier while recovering from wounds he received in battle. Was his intent to shoot paper targets? You can probably track the development of most fully automatic assault rifles for winning military contracts, domestic and abroad. Where is the money, with the average American recreational shooter or the military contracts? When rate of fire is considered, are they considering shooting paper targets? C'mon. Again, I don't have a problem with semi-autos. Full autos are the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) The assault rifle isn't designed to kill efficiently either, its designed to shoot fast, very fast, whether its intended purpose is to do some target practice or kill somebody is up to the user. Same with the sports car, its designed to be fast, very fast, whether or not its efficient design is for going for a joy ride or killing somebody is up to the user. Actually, it has to meet requirements for accuracy as well. It's more than about throwing lead. Munitions penetration is in there too. And they don't design them to just penetrate paper targets do they? EDIT> I don't mind anyone owning a semi-auto AK with a low-capacity mag. Apologies for the above because my concern here is ROF, not what necessarily defines an assault rifle. Contrary to everyone else, I don't think the AK should be the poster child of the weapons that need banned. It's one type (used too often as an example) when there are other fish to fry (the subs come to mind- M10, M11, Tech9, etc). Edited February 1, 2009 by the_spaniard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Again, I don't have a problem with semi-autos. Full autos are the issue. I don't think it's legal in the U.S. for a civilian to own a full auto without a back ground check to obtain special permits and licenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) Actually, it has to meet requirements for accuracy as well. It's more than about throwing lead. Munitions penetration is in there too. And they don't design them to just penetrate paper targets do they? At some point, there must be a line drawn. Ron W. has it correct, background checks are the most fair (to law-abiding citizens) method there is. The implementation of that is subject to scrutiny, but even you would agree the point behind any gun legislation should be to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You cannot accomplish that by keeping it out of the hands of everyone, because criminals will find a way. I'm sure you will acknowledge that heroin is illegal, yet readily available by anyone who wants it, AND it constitutes a threat to public safety. In Britain, they've already banned guns, now they want the knives. In response, the Met launched its largest operation yet targeting knives, called Operation Blunt 2, using airport-style metal detectors, search wands and emergency stop-and-search powers. Since it began in the Spring, 150,000 people have been searched, 5,370 people arrested and 3,242 knives seized. Tough enforcement measures, a high detection rate and millions of pounds being spent on anti knife crime initiatives had not stopped the rate of killing rising sharply from 17 in 2006, 16 each in 2005 and 2004, and 15 in 2003. But the latest drive has significantly curbed the rate of killings in London in the last three months. A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “We are very concerned about younger and younger people getting involved, being willing to use knives in violent confrontations and losing their lives. We want to create that environment where, if you are prepared to carry a knife, you can expect to be searched and found out. Every knife we recover could be a life saved.” Edited February 1, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 At some point, there must be a line drawn. Ron W. has it correct, background checks are the most fair (to law-abiding citizens) method there is. The implementation of that is subject to scrutiny, but even you would agree the point behind any gun legislation should be to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You cannot accomplish that by keeping it out of the hands of everyone, because criminals will find a way. I'm sure you will acknowledge that heroin is illegal, yet readily available by anyone who wants it, AND it constitutes a threat to public safety. In Britain, they've already banned guns, now they want the knives. After those bans is the crime rate any better? Chicago was considered one of the worst murder rates last year. How can this be considering they have a gun ban and strict laws. Same thing with the drug war, all these trillions we have spent on it and everything is illegal how is it still readily available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) Trim - I don't see many true automatics at my range, I would guess given the price of those weapons. It should be easy to convert a semi-automatic into an automatic. I don't see where cost comes into the picture. If you need to shoot a moving target, like a jack rabbit who is digging holes and causing your cattle to get broken legs, you need an automatic. Edited February 1, 2009 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) I still have my guns, maybe i should look inside and see if the bullets are still there, as for those rabbits i like to use RPG's. Edited February 1, 2009 by stephenhawkings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't think it's legal in the U.S. for a civilian to own a full auto without a back ground check to obtain special permits and licenses. It used to be that any automatic purchased since 1986 (or something like that) had to be registered as such. At one point the U.S. stopped importing full-autos, so there are only a finite number of true full autos here, hence the high prices they command. My point is I think they are unnecessary. Period. No reason to own one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Trim - I don't see many true automatics at my range, I would guess given the price of those weapons. It should be easy to convert a semi-automatic into an automatic. I don't see where cost comes into the picture. If you need to shoot a moving target, like a jack rabbit who is digging holes and causing your cattle to get broken legs, you need an automatic. Exactly. When I go hunting, I often set claymores on the small-game trails. :shades: Luckily, it is a fairly serious felony to even attempt to convert a semi-automatic weapon to full-auto, much less be in possession of a converted one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 At some point, there must be a line drawn. Ron W. has it correct, background checks are the most fair (to law-abiding citizens) method there is. The implementation of that is subject to scrutiny, but even you would agree the point behind any gun legislation should be to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You cannot accomplish that by keeping it out of the hands of everyone, because criminals will find a way. I'm sure you will acknowledge that heroin is illegal, yet readily available by anyone who wants it, AND it constitutes a threat to public safety. In Britain, they've already banned guns, now they want the knives. Sure, but we are only talking about full automatics here, and high-capacity magazines. Not every gun. This is my issue with hardcore gun people (not saying you are one of them, Ranger); they don't give an inch. They view ANY change in gun legislation an attack on their rights, period. It's ridiculous. I'm talking about legal automatics (illegal autos are already covered under law), which are most likely a tiny portion of guns in this country, and people go nuts. Hi-capacity magazines certainly affect more people, but I believe they should go too. CA already has laws for those. I'm sure you will acknowledge that is the U.S. would be a better place without heroin. Just because our government can't enforce it's own laws, does that mean we just give up and say "hey, it's never going to work, so why bother?". (Before anyone executes me, I consider heroin and other illegal drugs much worse for this country than full-autos.) As far as the Brits, that's a different culture out there. I saw a video recently on Most Daring that showed two British cops arresting a guy that is swinging at them like crazy with a small hand-axe. They had wooden nightsticks. Eventually they got him down. I can see their point on knives if all they carry is a wooden club. Out there, a nightstick is all that's really necessary most of the time. That's not a bad thing. This country can only dream of getting crime down to that level. But things are changing, even out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Exactly. When I go hunting, I often set claymores on the small-game trails. :shades: Luckily, it is a fairly serious felony to even attempt to convert a semi-automatic weapon to full-auto, much less be in possession of a converted one. Those pesky critters don't stick to any trails. I've seen them boot it across a field doing close to 60mph. I knocked one once at over 100 yards with a semi-auto .22. I fired twice, but he fell so fast that I think I got him with the first shot. It was a fluke. I had to aim high and about two lengths in front. An rpg would not work unless it had some kind of guidance system. The claymore would destroy more beef than bunny. A scattergun does not have enough range. What you need is an automatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 maybe we need to develope some sort of WMBD(weapon of mass bunnie destruction) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 This country can only dream of getting crime down to that level. But things are changing, even out there. Your ignorance is shining through. You better double check the British crime rate statistics again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 maybe we need to develope some sort of WMBD(weapon of mass bunnie destruction) Maybe we should just send Trim a bunch of Coyotes. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Rahm Emanuel, if you are on No Fly List, No Gun! Watch the video http://www.prisonplanet.com/rahm-emanuel-i...ist-no-gun.html May 15, 2007 Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) speaking at DC’s annual Stand Up For a Safe America event sponsored by the Brady Center says if your name is on the terrorist no fly list you should not be allowed to own a gun. Why are there so many names on the U.S. government’s terrorist list? In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.1 (See also this new March 2008 report.2 ) http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus… By those numbers, the list now has over one million names on it. Terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat. Bloated lists are bad because: * they ensnare many innocent travelers as suspected terrorists, and * because they waste screeners’ time and divert their energies from looking for true terrorists. http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/wa… Lou Dobbs - Obama Administration To Attack 2nd Amendment http://www.prisonplanet.com/lou-dobbs-obam...-amendment.html Edited February 2, 2009 by sprinter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99ktpbirdman Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Gotta say l can't blame Obama for wanting a ban gun agenda, l guess he does not want to end up being another Martin Luther King. Hold on to your guns and bibles boys here comes obama!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Your ignorance is shining through. You better double check the British crime rate statistics again. I've been uninformed before. I can admit that. Educate the savage, please. There were 42-gun related deaths in Britain last year. It's JUST like the U.S. :reading: Edited February 3, 2009 by the_spaniard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.