" banning of cop-killer bullets"

Holder...get a clue...you are AT after all!

I think you meant AG there Kerrin, not AT. Haha. On another note you posted this at pretty much the exact same time I did.

Speaking of which Arcade can you delete my entry for this same story? I don't see a way for me to delete it myself.

"not AT"...yeah...I am multitasking this am...and apparently not too well at that.

It is should be noted that the hast of this admin is crucial. They will cram many measures thru before dimwits know what hit them.

This would be the same bill 94.3% of the Democratic and 95.7% of the GOP members of the US Senate suppported, yes?

hast= haste

I guess in my haste...I posted without using spell check.

LOL

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Oh...well that really makes a big difference.

"Oh...well that really makes a big difference."

Not necessarily, but it does provide some perspective.

Perhaps you might consider actually reading the bill (unless you're already familiar with its text).

This would be the same bill 94.3% of the Democratic and 95.7% of the GOP members of the US Senate suppported, yes?

95% of Dem and 100% of GOP of the US Senate supported the PATRIOT Act...so let's not act as though unquestioning support is typically a good barometer of anything other than the American people getting fucked over, m'kay?

That was not what I said. Check again, you'll see the post consisted of citing a statistic, pure and simple. I have yet to see anyone posting on this thread making a case (let alone a persuasive case) either for or against the Assault Weapons Ban. It's not required, may not be necessary, but it might prove interesting.

"I have yet to see anyone posting on this thread making a case (let alone a persuasive case) either for or against the Assault Weapons Ban."

I have found that MOST people in the U.S. don't know the difference between an "assault weapon" and a widget. I talked face to face with a reporter some time back who had written an article promoting ownership of only single shot firearms and didn't know what semi-automatic meant. I gurantee you that many legislators don't know either.

Well the two assault rifles that I bought over the past 2 months are going to quadruple in value, so I got that going for me...

"Assault weapon" is a term like "Partial Birth abortion," most people have no clue what it means, but see words like "Assualt" and "partial birth" and assume that means evil and want it banned. Research is something for other people to do and never let facts stand in the way of a good opinion.

Well the two assault rifles that I bought over the past 2 months are going to quadruple in value, so I got that going for me...

#12 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-02-26 10:47 AM | Reply

I explained that much to Danni the other day.
She didn't believe the giant increase in gun sales were due to the Obama election, and couldn't understand the reason why they were being purchased.

Amazingly, she seemed to grasp it after just 2 posts!

Assault weapons look scary, and can kill.
Non-Assault weapons don't look scary, and can kill.

This is just Obama and Holder's way of stimulating the economy! Gun Dealers and Pawn Shop owners thank them.

"This would be the same bill 94.3% of the Democratic and 95.7% of the GOP members of the US Senate suppported, yes?"

That would be the same Senate that had record low approval ratings among surveyed Americans, yes?

I have found that MOST people in the U.S. don't know the difference between an "assault weapon" and a widget.

Well put.

Meanwhile, car antenna's go unnoticed. -Buffalo_Boob

*** "...yeah...I am multitasking this am....

.......#4 | Posted by kerrin57 ******

.......taking a dump with your laptop ?.......

.......don't forget to wipe down the keyboard......

This is just Obama and Holder's way of stimulating the economy! Gun Dealers and Pawn Shop owners thank them.

No doubt about that...I have a friend who is a gun dealer, and he's stopped taking layway on certain flavors of guns, because he has people lining up to take them off his hands without putting them on layaway. It truly is amazing how much things have changed in six months.

Meanwhile, car antenna's go unnoticed. -Buffalo_Boob

Heh...that's what you think! I've always got one eye looking around for the renegade car antenna attempting to strike at a moment's notice.

Well the two assault rifles that I bought over the past 2 months are going to quadruple in value, so I got that going for me...

Except that if you have a typical AR-15, SKS, AK47, etc...you don't have an assault rifle. You have a semi-automatic rifle.

From Wiki: "An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles (which are similar to assault rifles but are larger and more powerful) such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG."

Except that if you have a typical AR-15, SKS, AK47, etc...you don't have an assault rifle. You have a semi-automatic rifle.

From Wiki: "An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles (which are similar to assault rifles but are larger and more powerful) such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG."

The parts I bought were for an assualt rifle. They were very much full auto at one time. :) The finished product, not so much, unfortunately.

Re: #22 by axiom
That's the wiki definition, if this bill is to be the same as the one passed in 1994, maybe we should use the definition in that one?

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

Note to Rtard gun-nuts:

No matter how big your gun is or how many you have, the MAN will have more and bigger when he comes to take your guns. Live with it!!!!

(This is my contribution to the economic stimulus. This will cause the green-toothed, shit-eating brigade to storm their local gunshops and buy everything in site.)

"Amazingly, she seemed to grasp it after just 2 posts!"

Those of us who don't get sexually excited about assault rifles don't pay much attention to the topic normally but when supplied with facts are capable of learning.

No matter how big your gun is or how many you have, the MAN will have more and bigger when he comes to take your guns. Live with it!!!!

"The MAN" can't win in Iraq with 30 thousand rag tag soldiers as their adversary. There are more than 30 million gun owners in this country. Feel free to analyze those facts however you like.

I posted this on Dfiant's thread, so I'll repost here, fwiw:

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

A damn stupid move if you ask me.

Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."

I can't think of a more expeditious method for losing control of congress and empowering right-wing lunatics than enacting another weapons ban.

#24 | Posted by blah

All of that can be replaced with the simple phrase:

DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
(A) Anything that looks scary because we're pants pissing morons

I hope the Dems aren't counting on animosity against the Repubs to carry them any further, since they seem to be trying REALLY hard to out do them. I figured by the end of Obama's first term I'd be sick of the Dems and want them out of office, but it's only taken a month.

No matter how big your gun is or how many you have, the MAN will have more and bigger when he comes to take your guns. Live with it!!!!

Right...

insurgency in a country where the populace wasn't allowed to have weaponry/insurgency in a country where the populace is armed to the teeth.

Those of us who don't get sexually excited about assault rifles don't pay much attention to the topic normally but when supplied with facts are capable of learning.

Capable of learning and unwilling to learn are two separate things. Pretty much the mindset for folks who think gun owners are sexually excited about their guns.

Did anyone ever doubt this would happen?
He has been anti-constitution his whole career what would make anyone believe he would change?

Did anyone ever doubt this would happen?
He has been anti-constitution his whole career what would make anyone believe he would change?

Nope.

Never doubted it.

But I bet you'll find quite a few air-heads here who will tell you this doesn't mean he's infringing on our rights, just making minor adjustments.

Where's tonyroma to tell me that I'm over-reacting and reading too much into Obama's own record and the record of the anti-gun folks he has appointed and hired?

Axiom,
I don't know where I stand on this issue because I don't own a gun and never really put much thought about it, but I do have a question.

The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms, but is there any definition of "arms?" A nuclear weapon is an armorment, so is a tank, but I cannot and should not be able to own those, so there are limits. I think we need a new Constitutional Convention maybe to redefine some of these terms in the modern lexicon. What say you?

The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms, but is there any definition of "arms?" A nuclear weapon is an armorment, so is a tank, but I cannot and should not be able to own those, so there are limits. I think we need a new Constitutional Convention maybe to redefine some of these terms in the modern lexicon. What say you?

Arms would be short for firearms, which are basically defined as "any weapon from which a shot is fired by the force of an explosion; esp., such a weapon small enough to be carried, as a rifle or pistol"

#35

I always thought "arms" was short for "armament." Otherwise the term "nuclear arms" does not make sense.

The "arms race" was also an armament race, not a firearms race, so I think you may be wrong.

"Sorry officer, the firearms you are looking for were stolen years ago. Why did I not report it? Because just like my stolen bicycle, I knew you would not be able to find it so I saved you a lot of paperwork. And no sir, I did not hide my weapons and ammo somewhere, I insist they were stolen." ;)

The "arms race" was also an armament race, not a firearms race, so I think you may be wrong.

But, what makes more sense?

The right to keep and bear armaments?

The right to keep and bear firearms?

Does one "bear" armaments?

Does one "bear" armaments?

#39 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Yes, a firearm is an armament.

armament (rm-mnt)
n.
1. The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.
2. All the military forces and war equipment of a country. Often used in the plural.
3. A military force equipped for war.
4. The process of arming for war.

A hand gun is an armament, so is a missile. The "arms" in "firearms" is short for "armament."

Yes, a firearm is an armament.

I agree all firearms are armaments. But are all armaments firearms? I don't think so.

In the Middle Ages the term "firearm" was used in English to denote the arm in which the match was held that was used to light the touch hole on the hand cannon.

This original definition does not seem to lend itself to the idea that a missile is a firearm...at least not to me anyway.

But are all armaments firearms?
No, nor are we debating that. We are debating the origins of the term "arms" when talking about weapons and what the founding fathers meant when they said it. The second amendment never says "firearms" so I have no idea why you are fixated on that.

We are debating the origins of the term "arms" when talking about weapons and what the founding fathers meant when they said it.

I don't think a cruise missile, if the founders could have even imagined such a thing, fits with what they were talking about when penning the 2nd Ammendment.

But it technically does Jeff since the term "arms" was never defined. A missile is in all regards an armament and the 2nd says we have the right to bear arms. Did they imagine such a thing? No they didn't, but there are a great many things they never imagined that we are saying is covered by Constitutional protections, such as the internet. Look, I am arguing against the ban for the simple reason that an assult rifle is an arm and therefore protected. I just happen to also be saying we need a new Constitutional Convention to redefine some of these terms in current and modern uses.

Aren't all guns "assault" weapons? I mean really? For God's sake. They are made to kill. Something, someone, kill, that's the point. They're an assault on something regardless.

Assault weapon sure does sound more scary though doesn't it & we all know that's the point.

Don't like gun laws. Slippery slope BIGTIME. Supporters of this stuff are always "give em an inch they'll take a mile" on this one.

"I don't think a cruise missile, if the founders could have even imagined such a thing, fits with what they were talking about when penning the 2nd Ammendment"

I agree & disagree.

I think the founding fathers knew & believed in American ingenuitity & were forward thinking enough to forsee tech advances, maybe not in specifics but in general, even where weapons were concerned.

One may assume however that they had enough faith in future generations, however misplaced, to use the groundwork they laid and apply it accordingly. Given they had about all they could take of absolutism, they may have never envisioned we'd be this polarized on everything. I also think they would ALWAYS uphold the right to keep & bear arms because they understood that "personal decision" thing that escapes us nowadays & that guns don't fire themselves.

Did I mention I don't like gun laws?

The second amendment never says "firearms" so I have no idea why you are fixated on that.

Nor does it say armament. I thought we were trying to glean the meaning of "arms". You seem to think it indicates that it is a shortened form of the word armament. I think it is a shortened form of the word firearm.

You also say that that you think the meaning of "arms" in firearm is short for armament. It is not.

Iraq,
The arm in FIREARM is armament!

Firearm is defined as: A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

Armament is defined as: The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.

A firearm is an armament that fires a projectile using an explosive charge. The arm in firearm is armament!

A firearm is an armament that fires a projectile using an explosive charge. The arm in firearm is armament!

In the Middle Ages the term "firearm" was used in English to denote the arm in which the match was held that was used to light the touch hole on the hand cannon.

In that definition it certainly is not...which was my point. In my argument that arms in "bear arms" refers to firearms, not armament, which in its original definition relates to an individual lighting the touch hole on a hand cannon...which would exclude missiles.

That being said, I support the rights of anyone to own a tank or fighter jet. :)

The cannon is an armament. Anything used as a weapon is an armament, therefore all firearms are armaments. Not all aramaments are firearms however, but the arm in firearm is armament and the right to bear arms deals with weapons, not specific weapons. If they meant firearms only, they would have said "the right to bear firearms" since, as you pointed out, the term "firearm" predates the Constitution.

The cannon is an armament. Anything used as a weapon is an armament, therefore all firearms are armaments. Not all aramaments are firearms however, but the arm in firearm is armament and the right to bear arms deals with weapons, not specific weapons. If they meant firearms only, they would have said "the right to bear firearms" since, as you pointed out, the term "firearm" predates the Constitution.

Right...because they were including swords, axes, etc...

Anyway, who cares...I want a tank dammit!

Right...because they were including swords, axes, etc...

#52 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-02-26 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Anyway, who cares...I want a tank dammit!

#53 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-02-26 04:00 PM

They were and so do I; a Sherman tank!

Great debate Iraq! Very civil. Thanks a lot!

The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms, but is there any definition of "arms?" A nuclear weapon is an armorment, so is a tank, but I cannot and should not be able to own those, so there are limits. I think we need a new Constitutional Convention maybe to redefine some of these terms in the modern lexicon. What say you?

You'll never get an argument from me concerning nuclear arms or tanks.

You pick an odd topic, because you'll only find a very small minority in the gun-nut crowd who think they should be allowed to own any type of armament. I won't want to make an assumption about you, but it seems as if you picked the farthest end of the spectrum to use to make a point.

They are made to kill. Something, someone, kill, that's the point.

Not exactly. I take my shotgun out occasionally and shoot at clay pigeons. There's a certain amount of skill involved when it comes to hitting something flying through the sky.

It also improves proficiency and demands the utmost in practices of safety, and yet...no one or nothing dies.

You pick an odd topic, because you'll only find a very small minority in the gun-nut crowd who think they should be allowed to own any type of armament.

I am using the extreme to make a point. The point is that, if you agree I cannot own a nuke, then you agree there are limits to the right to bear arms. Iraqi brought up a point I never considered because I assumed everyone understood "arms" included "firearms," but that "arms" was also a larger category. I obviously assumed wrong and, if Iraqi's opinion is the popular one, then I am very wrong.

Personally, I see no difference between getting shot with a pistol, a rifle, or a machine gun; they all will hurt....a lot. The only thing I would like to see in the form of gun control are better efforts to keep guns away from criminals legally. To me, that would include more regulation at who can buy what at gun shows and such.

Nor does it say armament. I thought we were trying to glean the meaning of "arms". You seem to think it indicates that it is a shortened form of the word armament. I think it is a shortened form of the word firearm.

You also say that that you think the meaning of "arms" in firearm is short for armament. It is not.

Ok... here is the simple test as to whether or not "arms" meant "armament" or "firearms":

At the time that the Constitution was written, swords, knives, bayonets, and even axes were still used in battle on a regular basis.

Do you think that the founding fathers considered ownership of these weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Considering that swords, etc. were considered an "armament", you can reasonably conclude that the founding fathers meant "armaments" rather than only "firearms" when they said that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

You'll never get an argument from me concerning nuclear arms or tanks.

Why not? How many private citizens do you know that could afford, or even want to afford, an ICBM?

There would be natural limitations on the ownership of these weapons, and already existing laws on murder, etc. prohibit the use of them to kill others in virtually all situations. So owning them other than for bragging rights is pretty much useless.

Anyone that is deranged enough to use one in a mass murder situation, and has the capacity to acquire one, wouldn't be worried about the law saying he can't own one anyway.

Personally, I would love to own a fully capable F-117a... but even if it were legal, I don't have a hope in hell of affording one.

BTW... who do you think owned the cannons used during the Revolutionary war? We didn't even have a government yet. It was the people.

As a matter of fact, some of the cannons used in the early days of the civil war were privately owned as well.

Cannons were the times equivalent of a tank, missle, RPG launcher, etc.. That is to say, it was a weapon of war with little to no use outside of combat. Yet it was, and still is, considered protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Ok... lets take this a step further. The founding fathers have been quoted at length on here before regarding their feelings regarding the people necessary ability to abolish the government, by force if necessary. One example is Thomas Jefferson:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

The government has no need to fear us. They have weapons that we don't. Furthermore, we aren't ALLOWED to have them.

You think they fear not being relected? Bullshit. We have too much population, with too little representation per capita, to operate cohesively against any but the most serious governmental threat. Further more we are so divided ideologically, that agreeing what is serious enough to warrant action is well nigh impossible.

Add to that a secretive government that only tells us what they decide we need to know, and only allows access to that which they determine we have a need for, and hides things from everyone "for our own good" (national security, state secrets, etc.). What you have left is a situation where we are stuck with this government as it exist on its current path, with pathetically slim hope of ever changing it until such time as the country collapses. An event that history says happens to ALL civilizations eventually.

Do I suggest that we overthrow the government? No. I think the founding fathers had it right when they drafted the Consitution. However I wish--in vain I fear-- that everyone would use their votes to place representatives that would restore openess in our government, and restore our ability to strike fear in the hearts of our politicians at the mere thought of infringing on our freedoms.

Unfortunately too many people operate under the misguided notion that government is actually a solution the bigger it gets, rather than a problem.

Give me my assault rifle and an F-117a, you can have your tank and even your nuke... if you can afford one. Just don't try and tell me that I can't have protection from my government because it is "for my own good".

At the time that the Constitution was written, swords, knives, bayonets, and even axes were still used in battle on a regular basis.

Do you think that the founding fathers considered ownership of these weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Considering that swords, etc. were considered an "armament", you can reasonably conclude that the founding fathers meant "armaments" rather than only "firearms" when they said that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

#57 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-02-26 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I disagree emphatically. I do not for one moment think the founding fathers of this great nation meant armaments when they penned the 2nd Amendment. They specifically proscribed what weapons they were refering to by each States Militia. That was to be the Rifle that was to be used by every able bodied free man to defend property and to defend their Country(Read States) from the savages(Native Aericans, From other Countries(Read States again) and from civil unrest. It is well documented here.

Fuckkkkkkkkkkkk how did that happen?? Oh well I am not HTML literate it seems. Oh well. sighhhhhhhh

Why not? How many private citizens do you know that could afford, or even want to afford, an ICBM?

Because I don't think "I" need a nuclear weapon. I won't get into an argument about what someone else thinks they need.

The point is that, if you agree I cannot own a nuke, then you agree there are limits to the right to bear arms.

I don't agree that you cannot own a nuke. I said you would never get an argument from me because it's fucking dumb to even consider it. But that is my opinion. My whole point is that your opinion should not influence my ability or right to own a weapon.

If I want to buy an M4, I should be allowed to buy an M4. I know that the government is going to put in a lot of regulations and restrictions on me buying that M4.

I'll have to fill out a NICS form. I'll have to transfer the weapon via FFL holders because "I can't be trusted to receive a weapon I purchased myself".

People use straw purchases as a reason for all of this, but in the end, it's still an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. Whatever security YOU get from it is not worth MY liberty.

Eric Holder discredited himself in his own statement, automatic weapons and grenades are illegal to purchase in the US. No mention of semi automatics in his own comments.Illegal aliens are also "illegal".
Lets concentrate on enforcing the laws before we invent excuses to make new ones. Are we really going to now make laws to protect Mexico from Mexico. Lets start by making sure that legal immigrants are coming to the USA not illegal aliens.

"Lets concentrate on enforcing the laws before we invent excuses to make new ones."

Cuz America can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

This guy is a total tool!!!! Good thing I live in AZ, where I am allowed to have all my "armaments" I may have to use them on Obama's 'Citizen Militia". I wonder what percentage of His army will be african-american. I am still in shock that this guy got elected. But, Lefties are goofy

In completely unrelated news (and in response to post #66), hategroup membership is up!

The assault weapon ban was bullshit. People could still buy semiautomatic weapons, and they could even look scary. The only real effect on functionality was the size of the magazines allowed. Seems like a way to make it sound good to the brainless democratic masses who don't actually read up on what their politicians are doing.

FOLKS

hasnt the supremes ruled on just what the 2nd amendment means and even if they havent there is a history of what it means that goes back over 200 years..of course I know that means nothing to social enginneers these days

and also,....holder IS talking about SEMI automatic..right???

most libs want the public to think he is only talking about machine guns like you see in the movies.........and werent those limited like in 1939 or something?

Dude! I would so love a Tommy Gun!

In completely unrelated news (and in response to post #66), hategroup membership is up!

Dupes, huh?

" Black claims the number of registered members and readers on his white nationalist Web site surged to unprecedented levels in recent months.

On the day after Obama's historic election, more than 2,000 people joined his Web site, a remarkable increase from the approximately 80 new members a day he was getting"

First: Disarm the population

Your tears Rusty, they amuse me!

What a crybaby!

First: Disarm the population

#73 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-02-27 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag

Then what?

Don't trust America? THEN, GET THE FUCK OUT. Simple isn't it.

hasnt the supremes ruled on just what the 2nd amendment means and even if they havent there is a history of what it means that goes back over 200 years..of course I know that means nothing to social enginneers these days

#69 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-27 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag

Sorry--the activist judges on the USSC have changed the second amendment. It now means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed any way the government sees fit.

So, it seems that restricting what arms you can have is being carried out exactly as the republican activist judges determined--so quit bitching---your people put those judges on the Court that made that decision.

Don't trust America? THEN, GET THE FUCK OUT. Simple isn't it.

Is this the philosophy you adopted when you didn't trust the American government over the last eight years?

What country are you living in now?

Maybe you moved back since November.

Has there been a surge of "assult Weapons" crime since the ban expired? Please provide that link anyone.

So, it seems that restricting what arms you can have is being carried out exactly as the republican activist judges determined--so quit bitching---your people put those judges on the Court that made that decision.

They aren't my people. I'll bitch all I want.

ANTENNAE!!

The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms, but is there any definition of "arms?" A nuclear weapon is an armorment, so is a tank, but I cannot and should not be able to own those, so there are limits. I think we need a new Constitutional Convention maybe to redefine some of these terms in the modern lexicon. What say you?

#34 | Posted by kanrei

Which if the weapons of war were banned when they wrote the second amendment? Rockets? Cannons? Flame Throwers? Bombs? They did exist then and were not banned by our government.

Is this really about Mexican drug cartels, or is that just a fancy angle hiding the criminal liberals' true agenda of total government domination of absolutely everything, including your and my private parts? Might as well call them "public parts," and if you forget the "l" when typing the term, no deviation in the meaning.

Is this the philosophy you adopted when you didn't trust the American government over the last eight years?

What country are you living in now?

Maybe you moved back since November.

#77 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-02-27 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag

I've always trusted America and the American government. Bush was never the government, and the Constitution did protect from his worst desires for the country. I never had the fear of America taking away guns and then.........WHAT???? Start shooting people or putting them in camps? If I felt like that---I would leave.

On the day after Obama's historic election, more than 2,000 people joined his Web site, a remarkable increase from the approximately 80 new members a day he was getting"

(from cnn.com)

#72 | Posted by Scrumplet

EXACTLY
as I said the fbi keeps figures of this but they dont try and suppose what people think.

you are telling us that people are THINKING hate

and this is where we have come
the government is going to come down on us because of what we think or might say......

what a disgrace.

ANTENNAE!!

#79 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-02-27 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag

????????????????????????---the syphilis eating your brain?

Your tears Rusty, they amuse me!

What a crybaby!

#74 | Posted by Custer

thats okay custer because I know full well that liberal fucks dont really give a god damned about the economy as long as they can get thier agenda passed and thats a fact as seen in FOUR TRILLION DOLLAR budgets that puts us at over a trillion dollar deficit.

so I understand how you think I am just a crybaby because INFORMATION Is the worst enemy liberal fucks have to worry about.

I've always trusted America and the American government. Bush was never the government, and the Constitution did protect from his worst desires for the country. I never had the fear of America taking away guns and then.........WHAT???? Start shooting people or putting them in camps? If I felt like that---I would leave.

#82 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

but my good debating friend bob

if a few brave men and thier woman had this same notion not all that long ago.
there wouldnt even BE a constitution.
so I say...WE STAY AND FIGHT.....

They did exist then and were not banned by our government.

#80 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-02-27 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag

The Supreme Court has determned in their last ruling on the subject, that the right to bear arms may be infringed at any time and any way the government sees fit.

WE STAY AND FIGHT.....

#86 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-27 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag

Fight who, for what, with what?

Is this really about Mexican drug cartels, or is that just a fancy angle hiding the criminal liberals' true agenda of total government domination of absolutely everything, including your and my private parts?
posted by Scrumplet

IraqiBukkake,

What kind of "assault weapons" did you purchase over the past two months? I was thinking of buying an AR-15 by years end, but looks like I might need to move that purchase up to much earlier.

"The Supreme Court has determned in their last ruling on the subject, that the right to bear arms may be infringed at any time and any way the government sees fit."

That wasn't a new principle. The individual right to bear arms has always been infringed upon in reasonable ways (i.e. no felons owning guns), and the Supreme Court has long upheld such infringements. The fact that this is the first supreme court case you ever obsessed over doesn't mean it's the first time they said that.

#89

Partisan? Is that like a sandwich or something?

Fight who, for what, with what?

#88 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at

the pen is mightier than the sword

or I guess the laptop these days

INFORMATION is the LAST thing that liberals want to get out to the public....

"INFORMATION is the LAST thing that liberals want to get out to the public....

Of course, that might enable the people to think for themselves. Can you imagine if people actually thought rather then just did what they were told?

We should ban information, too, since it's mightier than the deadly assault weapon.

That wasn't a new principle.

Yes, it was. The second amendment expressly forbids infringement of the type of weapons that the militia may hold for protection of the State. That makes snse when you read the second amendment for what the words say. It is for forming a well organized militia to protect the State and its people from a powerful central government. The second amendment has nothing to do with the individual right to bear arms---until this court changed its meaning.

The individual right to bear arms has always been infringed upon in reasonable ways (i.e. no felons owning guns),

You are mistaken. Such laws were placed on the books long after the Second Amendment was ratified. In addition, don't you think the Founding Fathers were kind of stupid for saying such a right should not be infringed when it is obvious that such a right would so easily and readily be infringed? They weren't stupid---they weren't taking about individuals---they were talking about a well-regulated militia formed by the people to guard the welfare of the State against a strong central government---a well-regulated militia that had nukes and tanks and no infringement on arms, and was capableof defending itself from the Federal Government.

and the Supreme Court has long upheld such infringements.

Link?

The fact that this is the first supreme court case you ever obsessed over doesn't mean it's the first time they said that.

Link?---I think you will discover you are mistaken.

Facts are the USSC changed the second amendment from this:

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.

to this:

Individuals have the right to keepand bear arms, but such right may be infringed at any time.

That's called legislating from the bench. AKA Activist Judges.

Right against illegal search and siezure---gone--Activist Judges.

Right to private property? New eminent domain ruling---Activist Judges.

Gee---they seem to be the same judges. How bout that.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2009-02-27 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag

INFORMATION is the LAST thing that liberals want to get out to the public....

#92 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-27 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag

It seems just the opposite to me. I only hear of conservative wanting to hold back information. Like pictures of coffins---investigating 911---testifying under oath--torture prisons---Fairness Doctrine---e-mails---White House log ins--how Jeff Gannon got those Press Passes every day. Seems to me the past 8 years have been nothing but an information black out.

What information are liberals holding back that you think should be out there? As a liberal, I'd like to know what we are hiding from the generalpublic that they need to know.

Can you imagine if people actually thought rather then just did what they were told?

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-02-27 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag

They might know when to use "then" and "than" for starters. Do you think if people REALLY thought, that they should have elected McCain?

the pen is mightier than the sword

#92 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-27 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then you won't mind giving up your gun. I'll give you a BIC for it.

"Then you won't mind giving up your gun."

Is there ANYONE who believes machine guns and hand grenades were bought at gun shows in AZ and taken to Mexico for drug wars?

Also,
folks bitched like hell about the Patriot Act knowing the NSA can and will listen to anything it wants anytime. I mean who cares about your cell phone chatter about weed and mistresses?
These same folks now would love to see a bill like HR 45 pass. I never could get this liberal aspect. Willing to give up you 2nd and 4th amendment rights because guns are "so dangerous".

I'm glad I live in a state where I can go shoot every week and I'm looked upon as normal. Not enough Americans enjoy hunting,fishing and the outdoors anymore and most would vote for a ban on just about all guns..

Also, the way democrats define "assault" weapons, a majority of all guns will be banned. Semi auto handguns(unless it's a single action revolver), semi auto shotguns for duck hunting, the 25 year old .22 grandpa gave you to shoot squirrels and plink with, all will be banned.

It's totally stupid. Anyone who's antigun has problems if you ask me. Wanting and owning firearms for hunting, collecting, home protection, and just for the hell of it is why were are lucky to be in America. I love shooting and you can't tell me liberal cry babies wouldn't either if given the chance. Shooting is a sport and it's fun.

"The second amendment expressly forbids infringement of the type of weapons that the militia may hold for protection of the State. That makes snse when you read the second amendment for what the words say"

Nobody cares what you read it to mean. The Supreme Court knows more about the Constitution and the history of our nation than you ever will. What you think the 2nd Amendment means is not important. Read a few cases and note the history and cases they cite. You might learn something. You are wrong.

"and the Supreme Court has long upheld such infringements."

"Link?"

If you need a link to cases where the Supreme Court held that reasonable restrictions may be placed on an individual's right to bear arms (i.e. no felons owning guns), then you are retarded. The cases exist and are easy to find. If you want a link, find it yourself.

The Supreme Court has determned in their last ruling on the subject, that the right to bear arms may be infringed at any time and any way the government sees fit.

#87 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I guess they just re-wrote the second amendment. I never heard that they ruled that way. Please provide the link for that one.

You can't find a decent military-style rifle for sale in my town. Similarly, there is no .223 or 7.62 ammo around.

...Assault weapons ban...what a fucking joke.

Buy all the "arms" you want. What we need is bullet control. The Constitution doesn't say shit about bullets. It shouldn't be easier to buy bullets than cigarettes.

The technology is available to laser print every bullet made, tie them to a photo ID, and make tracking them back to the buyer a process any police investigator can complete in minutes. Simply pull every bullet on the market, force reloaders to get a license and use marked shot, put a big tax on purchase to cover the expense ($1.00 per bullet seems about right), make the buyer responsible for where that bullet ends up, and in a few years we will be on our way to a safer society.

Make the penalty for using unmarked bullets death by firing squad and I wouldn't care what kind of gun you own.

This is for the guy who wants a Tommy Gun...Here you go...

Here's another, All us true patriots need to arm up..Obama and his crew are toooooo out of hand

for those who want to drop a few more of Obama's "love police"

And this is the one I put a bid in one...So at least I may be out-numbered....But never outgunned

OOPS..forgot the link

Ahhh..An American classic

260K for a gun. That is some serious stupid tax!

Is there ANYONE who believes machine guns and hand grenades were bought at gun shows in AZ and taken to Mexico for drug wars?

#100 | Posted by laylakerunner

Is there anyone STUPID enough to believe you can buy that stuff at a gun show?

That is your governement at work..Anything "MANLY" they tax to high heaven to emasculate you, I went to Buy a 2008 Dodge Challenger with he 6.1 Hemi, The LibTards put a 3500 dollar gas tax on it. I paid it and can't wait to drive it buy Nancy Pelosi house at 2am every morning..LOL

Only Libtards beleive that, we have one here this weekend at the fair grounds, I have been going for years and you CANNOT buy anything full atuomatic..Libs are ridiculous

"Similarly, there is no .223 or 7.62 ammo around."

Or .308 or 9mm or .45 ACP...

"The technology is available to laser print every bullet made, tie them to a photo ID, and make tracking them back to the buyer a process any police investigator can complete in minutes. Simply pull every bullet on the market, force reloaders to get a license and use marked shot, put a big tax on purchase to cover the expense ($1.00 per bullet seems about right), make the buyer responsible for where that bullet ends up, and in a few years we will be on our way to a safer society."

That's a great idea. Don't outright ban guns, that would be unconstitutional, just effectively ban their use by making it too damned expensive. I'm sure the other nine amendments in the bill of rights must have similar back doors, why don't we enact them all?

The problem with the laser marking of bullets and brass has the same problem as every other gun law: they won't prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns. They will only affect those who lawfully own guns.

I went to Buy a 2008 Dodge Challenger with he 6.1 Hemi

Sure you did. Currently they are going for about 10K over sticker. So you paid 10 grand more for the car than the manufacture says it's worth! Dodge made it as a gimmick car for men going through their middle age crisis, smile for the camera, dope.

Just think, had you waited a few more months you could have gotten a GTR (skyline) in the US with 500+ hp, all wheel drive, and -6 seconds on a 911 turbo (-8 on the vet) around the Nuremburg ring.

R8R,

had you waited a few more months you could have gotten a GTR (skyline) in the US with 500+ hp, all wheel drive,

The Skyline is rated at 480 bhp, although given its performance numbers it is likely under-rated. Also, the Skyline costs about $80 grand, even at 10 above sticker the Challenger is about $50 grand, so with the remaining $30k a base Nissan 370Z could be inserted into the garage as well.

-6 seconds on a 911 turbo (-8 on the vet) around the Nuremburg ring.

Which Vet? Z51, Z06 or ZR1?

Well, I am middle aged, and I am supporting the American Car makers. Plus was cheaper than I thought, when they first came out..you had to bid on them. So 44,600 was not a lot.

Only Libtards would buy a German Car. I lIke how they total forgive BMW and Mercedes for fueling the German War machine But have no problem calling all American corporations "evil". You Know Mercedes Built all the engines for the PAnzer and Tiger tanks which were responsible for thousands of AMerican tank crew deaths..

I'll drive my Challenger and enjoy burning irreplaceable fossil fuels at an alarming rate, like a real man and you drive your metrosexual mobile

Careful with the libtard insult, Hillbilly.

I'd drive a BMW in a heartbeat, if I could afford one.

Saw a Skyline in person the other day for the first time. Nice car, but kind of cheap and plastic looking for what it costs. I'm sure it drives like hell though.

R8R,

In the August '08 edition of Car and Driver the following 4 vehicles were pitted against eachother:

GT-R
Vette Z06
Viper
Porsche 911 GT2

At the Buttonwillow raceway park, these cars had the following average lap times as well as zero-60 times:

Z06 2:01.7 3.8
GTR 2:01.1 4.1
GT2 1:59.7 3.7
Viper 1:55.7 3.4

The spacing didn't work as well as I thought regarding the numbers.

Let's use the Z06 numbers:
2:01.7 was the average amount of time it took the Z06 to perform a lap.

3.8 was its zero-60 time.

Lets see...

The government (not just Bush) says:

Foreign nationals hijacked two planes and flew them into the Twin Towers causing them to eventually collapse.

BBob says:

Nay, nay... controlled demolition. The planes were a ruse and government perpetrated.

Don't trust America? THEN, GET THE FUCK OUT. Simple isn't it.

#75 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-02-27 11:08 AM

Foreign nationals hijacked a plane and flew it into the pentagon.

BBob says:

Nay, nay. It was a missle. No wreckage of a plane was found because there wasn't a plane.

Don't trust America? THEN, GET THE FUCK OUT. Simple isn't it.

#75 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-02-27 11:08 AM

Multiple manned Apollo missions flew to, and landed on, the moon. Television signals were sent from the moon documenting this.

BBob says:

Nay, nay. We never sent manned missions to the moon and the government perpetrated a massive hoax.

Don't trust America? THEN, GET THE FUCK OUT. Simple isn't it.

#75 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-02-27 11:08 AM

I would drive one also, I wouldn't buy one..I am at the point now, where I am running out of options, the UAW has pissed me off so much, I think I have bought my last American made. Now If I could be sure I could get a toyota built at a plant in the south, I think that is my last option. Perhaps I will start a car company and call it "the homer"

#123 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-02-27 02:38 PM

Bye Bobby!

Aye Carumba;
How we gonna get our guns if the yanquis can't sell them to us? Quick, amigos, sell a couple of kilos and give the money to the NRA and the Rushpublicans to keep the weapons flowing. If trading drugs for guns was good enough for Reagan...

Mexican Drug Lords.

Mind boggling!!! As is the case from anything to everything most people believe what they want and don't let facts get in the way. The assault weapons ban has been shown to be useless, both by implementation and sunsetting. Assault weapon is a sound byte signifying nothing. The case that no one seems to be making is that we now have young men and women in the military in harms way. We will always have men and women in harms way as long as we are a nation. A lifetime of experience in the shooting sports, especially hunting, is invaluable in combat. We will not be able to equip are military forces without arms manufacturers being able to sell civilian versions of military weapons to the public. Guns are no more solely for killing than cars are solely for transportation. If only the government, military and police, are allowed to own firearms we no longer have a democratic form of government, we have fascism. Personally I am more concerned over the militarization of the police than I am over my neighbor having an AR or AK clone. BTW every time one hears AK47 on the news it doesn't refer to an AK47, but the semi-automatic version of the AK47 such as a WASR10 AKM74 etc. Make no mistake that the gun control forces, both national and international, ultimate goal is to ban all private ownership of firearms. Want to end the drive by shootings and the drug war in Mexico? Legalize drugs. The drug war is about money, not guns or drugs. Want to improve the readiness of our military and reduce or eliminate the innocent victims of drive by shootings? Make firearms training mandatory as part of a high school education. The majority of US citizens now live in urban areas, a historical change that has left the majority of citizens with a TV knowledge of firearms and the inability to determine the difference between reality and fantasy.

JJ,

It was several months ago when I saw the right up. I'm pretty sure it was a Z06. Nissan doesn't say what the HP is on a GTR since every motor is hand built and computer matched to a hand built tranny. The tires have nitrogen because apparently oxygen isn't stable enough. The computer controls on the dash were designed by the Gran Turismo gamers.

The Top Gear guys took one for two different shows. Jeremy's exact words for the Nuremburg (GP strecke) test were, "So it's faster than a Veryon, Zonda, 911, SLR, Viper, ...oh and ZO6.
And on that bomb shell we end the show."
Good Night!"

How fast something goes down a straight line through 4th gear isn't much of a testament for me. At some point the damned thing has got to make a proper turn, no?

BTW, Hillbilly. My "Metrosexual mobile" is a '84 Cj7 with a Dodge sb318, it hasn't been washed since the Clinton Administration.

just effectively ban their use by making it too damned expensive.

You say that like it is a bad thing....?

Silly hobbies are sometimes expensive. You priced a 168cm Arbor A-frame lately?

Here's how I feel about abortions AND guns:

Keep 'em legal and hard to get.

No need to thank me for my wisdom.

Carry on.

If that is how you feel, BBob, don't be a hypocrite. Take your own advice.

#123 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-02-27 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag

Just because they lied about the landing doesn't mean they are going totake away your gun and start shooting people.

You have the logic circuits of a gnat.

I guess they just re-wrote the second amendment. I never heard that they ruled that way. Please provide the link for that one.

#102 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-02-27 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag

No problem.

Holder made mention that ""I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

So now we pass laws because of what happens in Mexico? And coming from a lawyer on marc rich's payroll, who circumvented US laws in order to pardon a financial thief who never admitted guilt???

Obama is famous for being anti gun ownership of ALL kinds, and I guess it should be expected.

AK 47's and AR15's have doubled in price over the last 9 months. Going rate for a romanian AK is like 850 now at gun shows

And skid mark you are wrong, ammo's still in stock all over SE PA!

Just because they lied about the landing doesn't mean they are going totake away your gun and start shooting people.

That wasn't your criteria, BBob. You very specifically said:

Don't trust America? THEN, GET THE FUCK OUT. Simple isn't it.

#75 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-02-27 11:08 AM

You have shown time and time again as I pointed out that you don't trust the government. You think they lie and purposefully create hoaxes and kill Americans in evil plots. Take your own advice.

So, if you don't immdiately make plans to leave you have proven that either you are a hypocrite or a pathetic grandstander. Which is it? Are you going to take your advice and leave?

Moomanfl

Just because you can take a phrase out of context, doesn't mean you have a point---it just means you are intellectually dishonest. An entity can be honest about some subjects and dishonest about others. There was one specific case of honesty and trust mentioned---simple morons like you could be confused, but that's simply because you are stupid. Get it?

This was predictable.

I already have three AR-15's.

I'll get one of these instead since i've wanted one and they'll probably be banned also.

Just because you can take a phrase out of context, doesn't mean you have a point

Wrong again, BBob. I provided the entirety of your statement as context. You are just trying to change the context retroactively because you realize you got caught in your own trap.

I see now you are either a hypocrite or a pathetic grandstander that has--how did you put it-- the logic circuits of a gnat.

You take one situation in which I don't agree with the government and say it equates to enough distrust of the government. I show where you have AT LEAST THREE different areas in which you don't agree with them. By your own standards of judging trust, that means you have less trust than me.

You said I should leave the country. Take your own advice.

You said I should leave the country. Take your own advice.

Aother humorous part of BoObology is his insistence that we need two countries. Yet he is literally the only one on the DR who advocates such a goofy idea. But yet he tells everyone else, "Go start another country" when it is he who wants that! Everyone else (left and right) are happy with one.

Why do you expect everyone else to do your work for you, bOoB? Is it that liberalism that's ingrained in you? That sense of entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for what you wnat -- that someone should do it for you?

What a lazy fuck you are!

Can someone explain what the big deal is about owning assault weapons?

Criminals use them to kill cops. Homeowners don't use them to shoot invaders.

If you need one for 'hunting' you're a piss poor hunter. If you need one to 'protect your home' you're a damn poor shot and need training.

Even James Brady, who was gunned down during the Reagan assassination attempt, is opposed to assault weapons.

They seem to be most popular with those who'd you'd suspect of having very small dicks and need them to compensate somehow.

HAHA..My First car was a 1968 Satellite with a 318, I drove the crap out of that thing and that little motor hauled that Big ole thing around pretty well. Ah, the good ole days with Boston cranking on the 8 track, A cross hanging on the rear view and gas at 29 cents a gallon...And then the libs came out of the woodwork and ruined evrything..My first gun was a wehrmacht german luger my grandpa took from a german (didn't kill him or torture him for all you libs worried about that) at Aachen, Germany. My brother ended up with it somehow..You know you can't even bring enemy weapons home any more...Libs have even ruined the small joy of war ..LOL

Nearly every cop in the world supports an assault weapons ban too

The biggest supporters of assault weapons seem to be hillbillies who can't shoot straight.

And for Libs who can't understand why guys like assault weapons, Because it is our right!!!you seems to want to take everything else away that our grandfathers passed down, but with guns, it is written in a document even you can't rewrite to fit your ideology

Criminals use them to kill cops.

Criminals, by definition, don't care whether their weapon of choice is illegal before they own one. A law won't change them having one.

Homeowners don't use them to shoot invaders.

Erroneous logic. Just because you don't know of a instance of this happening doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Irregardless, they COULD be used for home protection. As a matter of fact, in a home invasion with more than one intruder with firearms... I would rather be the one outgunning than the one outgunned.

If you need one for 'hunting' you're a piss poor hunter.

So... where is the law against being a piss-poor hunter? Or the law saying that if you are a piss-poor hunter that you don't have a right to hunt?

If you need one to 'protect your home' you're a damn poor shot and need training.

Just outlined the flaw in this logic. Multiple invaders armed with guns has happened before. It can happen again. Being a good shot when you are outgunned 3 to 1 is not a position I want to be in. I would rather be the one outgunning the intruders regardless of whether I can shoot the balls off a fly at 100 paces.

Even James Brady, who was gunned down during the Reagan assassination attempt, is opposed to assault weapons.

Who gives a shit? So because he was shot he has the right to determine what rights we get and don't get? Screw that.

They seem to be most popular with those who'd you'd suspect of having very small dicks and need them to compensate somehow.

Gee, I guess I would say the same for those that are compensating by trying to subjugate peoples rights because it makes them feel powerful. Or for those that are so insecure that they have to make themselves feel safe by taking away the rights of others.

If you need an assault weapon to feel like a man you need psychiatric help.

It used to be a 'right' to carry six shooters everywhere you went too, but common sense did away with that 100 years ago.

You're on the wrong side of that argument according to every cop in America (but the dumb nuts who couldn't get a job doing anything else).

Nearly every cop in the world supports an assault weapons ban too

#141 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-27 09:39 PM

Nearly every cop in the world also supports profiling. So much for what cops think, eh?

You know AU i don't know why so many folks like guns in the first place. I figure it's to compensate for a puny pecker or a substandard one. You know their "Gun" can't shoot far but their metal gun can shoot all over the place. You know it's so they can feel real manly because they now own a gun. I think it's stupid myself.

Larry

I hear ya, LARRY

Here's a little "Hillbilly Jihad" for your viewing pleasure. You MUST watch it till the end!

MOOMAN

'Profiling' doesn't rip through a Kevlar vest or pose a threat to anyone in the area, does it?

PS Hillbilly

The only Democrats in the White House between your '68 Satellite and Obama were Carter and Clinton.

BTW, it was Carter who tried to wean us off foreign oil - which was only 25% of our oil at the time. So, blame someone else for your having to pay more for gas to fill your Dukes of Hazzardmobile.

'Profiling' doesn't rip through a Kevlar vest or pose a threat to anyone in the area, does it?

That wasn't the point. You used the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Because the cops think it is a good idea, then the rest of us should.

I simply highlighted the flaw in that logic by pointing out something else the police support that you disagree with.

I figure it's to compensate for a puny pecker or a substandard one.

???

Are you saying that everyone who owns a gun has a tiny pecker? Well, since it is estimated that about half of America has a gun, statistically, their peckers would have to be at least average size. Otherwise what are you comparing them against?

At any rate, my guess is that some sort of prosthetic device would make a better penis substitute than a firearm, but not being a woman, I wouldn't know for sure. Somehow I just can't see how the insertion of a firearm into a body orifice could be sexually gratifying. I'd be scared to death I'd end up with more holes after the act than I started with.

Pistols, rifles, no. Assault weapons, yup. Small peckers.

Or criminal intent

MOOMAN

Sorry, guy. I just don't see any logical reason anyone needs to own an assault weapon.

They do seem especially popular with rednecks and narco terrorists though.

Pistols, rifles, no. Assault weapons, yup. Small peckers.

#153 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-27 09:57 PM

Goatman,

AU and Larry just have a case of penis envy. Their peckers are small so they have to make themselves feel like a man by controlling others. The fantasy that the people they are against have small penises is necessary to make themselves feel better about their own lacking.

Sorry, guy. I just don't see any logical reason anyone needs to own an assault weapon.

So, because you don't see the logic, ergo it must be illogical? Are you really that arrogant?

MOOMAN

Explain the logic in anyone needing an assault weapon?

They sell pistols and rifles all day long all across America.

I know you're a right winger, so naturally you want to stick up for rednecks who either can't shoot straight with a pistol, or feel they need an assault weapon to hunt.

Explain the logic in anyone needing an assault weapon?

Our rights have nothing to do with our needs.

An atheist has no need of Freedom of Religion... does that mean we should deny them that Right?

Just because you don't need a particular Right at the moment, is no excuse for denying that Right. The point is that the only time you will miss that Right is when you need it but don't have it. By then it is too late.

I know you're a right winger, so naturally you want to stick up for rednecks who either can't shoot straight with a pistol, or feel they need an assault weapon to hunt.

And I know you are a left winger, so naturally you feel the need to stick up for the communists that see an adequately armed society as a threat to their domination plans.

Seriously, if you want to get ridiculous with your strawman generalities then two can play at that.

OK, again MOOMAN

It was a 'right' to carry twin side shooters until common sense won the day.

I'm not a left winger. I'm a centrist. "Stick up for communists"?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Law enforcement don't consider themselves "strawmen", but they may as well be in the face of assault weapons.

See #161

It was a 'right' to carry twin side shooters until common sense won the day.

Another tangle of logical fallcies.

First you suggest that denying Rights given by the Constitution was common sense. It wasn't.

As a matter of fact in many places in the US you can STILL carry twin six-shooters... without people going nuts and having high-noon showdowns in the town square.

That tells me that the culprit responsible for the unruliness of the "Wild West" was inadequate law enforcement. Not gun-toting people. The situation is different these days. More officers with a much shorter response time and higher communication abilities means the laws are enforced much more evenly.

I'm not a left winger. I'm a centrist. "Stick up for communists"?

Well, like I said, you want to use a ridiculous strawman generalization then I can two. Mine was just as valid as yours.

Bush also said he supported the Assault Weapons ban and then never signed to extend the legislation.

Cops everywhere are now sighing a breath of relief.

Law enforcement don't consider themselves "strawmen", but they may as well be in the face of assault weapons.

Yes, and their job would be much easier and their profession much safer with permanent martial law too... but I guess Rights only count when they are ones YOU value.

In Afghanistan they consider it a 'right' to beat their wives senseless too.

You just don't get when what were/are considered 'rights' stand to harm more than they help.

I gave you the example of six shooters. If you can't understand how sometimes limiting ownership of certain weapons in certain situations is beneficial to the vast majority, I can't help you.

Heck, you have a huge problem not being able to carry a gun into a bar? They banned it because it makes common sense that mixing alcohol and guns don't work.

In Afghanistan they consider it a 'right' to beat their wives senseless too.

So by your logic, then they should ban marriage... to cut down on wife beating.

"Heck, you have a huge problem not being able to carry a gun into a bar? They banned it because it makes common sense that mixing alcohol and guns don't work."

And if you notice, every time a legislature passes a concealed carry law, they ALWAYS ban carrying a weapon into their building. Farkin' hypocrites.

You're 'logic' doesn't fit the definition of 'logic'. Now you're creating strawmen.

Do you consider it a 'right' to carry a loaded weapon in the cab of your truck out of state? Give it a try and flag down a cop to see what he thinks about your 'rights'.

Do you consider it a 'right' to carry a loaded weapon in the cab of your truck out of state? Give it a try and flag down a cop to see what he thinks about your 'rights'.

So, because my rights are infringed in one way, I should be ok with my rights being infringed in others?

And you say MY logic doesn't fit the definition?

Debating right wingers is such a waste. Logic isn't in their dictionary.

Even with 99.9% of cops in favor of banning assault weapons - those in the line of fire and witnesses to the carnage they create - the right wingers still want to whine about their 'rights'.

If a pistol or a rifle aren't enough to feel 'protected' or shoot a deer, then I go back to the small pecker rational hillbillies have over assault weapons ownership ...

Later. My wife just got back home. Better things to do on a Friday night .....

Even with 99.9% of cops in favor of banning assault weapons - those in the line of fire and witnesses to the carnage they create - the right wingers still want to whine about their 'rights'.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-27 10:37 PM | Reply

Since Cops are an extention of State power they would be the first to try and take the Rights that are protected by the US Constitution away from the populace. Their voices should be tempered with that truth.

Larry

What was the strawman you were talking about? The banning marriage part?

Ok, if that was what you were talking about I will be happy to elucidate:

1)Wife beating is the objectionable behavior that you disagree with in one situation.

Murder is the objectionable behavior you disagree with in the other situation

2)Marriage is the instrument that allows wife beating to happen since marriage supplies the wife.

Assault weapons are what allows a murder by assault weapon to happen.

3)Ban marriage and there will be no wives to beat.

Ban assault weapons and there will be no murder with assault weapons.

----------------------------

Gee, it just seems much simpler and more logical to outlaw the bad behavior and vigourously punish violations.

"Can someone explain what the big deal is about owning assault weapons?"

Me too, no big deal.

Why the hysteria to ban them then?

"Criminals use them to kill cops."

NOW i see the hysteria.

"If you need one for 'hunting' you're a piss poor hunter. If you need one to 'protect your home' you're a damn poor shot and need training."

Would you rather have the piss poor hunter merely wound an animal, that gets away to die a horribly slow death while the piss poor hunter chambers another round?

What does having one for home protection have to do with shooting skills?

Poor choice.

I prefer my semi auto 16ga for home defense.

Since Cops are an extention of State power they would be the first to try and take the Rights that are protected by the US Constitution away from the populace. Their voices should be tempered with that truth.

On this statement, you and I are in total agreement, Larry. Excellent point.

You know AU i don't know why so many folks like guns in the first place. I figure it's to compensate for a puny pecker or a substandard one. You know their "Gun" can't shoot far but their metal gun can shoot all over the place. You know it's so they can feel real manly because they now own a gun. I think it's stupid myself.

Larry

#147 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-02-27 09:47 PM

Damn Larry your gun cabinet must be bursting at the seams.

Even with 99.9% of cops in favor of banning assault weapons - those in the line of fire and witnesses to the carnage they create

Tell you what, Sparky. You want to get my support for a ban? I will tell you how to do it...

Show me how many of the cop killings, etc. were perpetrated with LEGALLY OWNED assault weapons.

After all, for an assault weapons ban to make a difference, the people that use them in crimes have to care that they will be breaking the law to own them.

Damn Larry your gun cabinet must be bursting at the seams.

Posted by JSL1808 at 2009-02-27 11:05 PM | Reply

Sorry but all I've got are 3 Staple Guns 2 half inch impact guns and a butterfly gun. But no gun that shoots out a bullet. Fraid You are wrong.

Larry

...and a butterfly gun

Isn't that a bit overkill? Can't you just catch them in a net instead of shooting them?

Butterfly gun is the one on the right

2 half inch impact guns

If the suggestion is that someone gets a bigger gun than their penis to compensate... what is this saying about you Larry? One full inch of guns?

and a butterfly gun

if an deer rifle is used for hunting deer, and an elephant gun is used for hunting elephants... why the hell are you hunting butterflies???? Is this your idea of the "most dangerous game"?

Seriously, Larry, I am just having fun with you. Take it in the spirit meant... a joke.

"Debating right wingers is such a waste. Logic isn't in their dictionary.

Even with 99.9% of cops in favor of banning assault weapons - those in the line of fire and witnesses to the carnage they create - the right wingers still want to whine about their 'rights'."

99.9%??!

Unless you can supply a link to that stat, you're nothing but a bald faced liar.

if an deer rifle is used for hunting deer, and an elephant gun is used for hunting elephants...

And 'assault' weapons are used primarily for? Assault?

AU, is that the best you can do?

I was admittedly just having fun with Larry by joking. I could be wrong but I have the feeling you are serious. Please tell me I am wrong and that you weren't trying to make a serious point using what was obviously and admittedly a joke based on intentionally flawed logic.

BABBLEathon (may I call you Babu?)

Here, moron:

"Every major national law enforcement organization in the country supported the federal assault weapons ban and worked for its passage. Among the many law enforcement organization that supported the ban are the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation.."

Google it idiot.

"And 'assault' weapons are used primarily for? Assault?"

Yes.

The best defense is a good offense.

OK MOOMAN

Then let's end the restriction on carrying six shooters and overturn all gun laws, right?

Then let's see how 'safe' you feel. Ask cops how they feel about assault weapons. I just posted the FACT that EVERY police union and organization supports a ban on assault weapons.

What do you have to back up YOUR strawman?

BTW, my quote was to BABUALATHON or whatever he calls himself.

Only rednecks, hillbillies, and deranged criminals want to argue FOR assault weapons. Everyone else sees the logic in banning them. They serve no purpose.

Should everyone be able to buy a Bradley tank, Exocet missiles, or artillery? Where should the 'right to bear arms' end? Aren't tanks and artillery 'arms'? Hmm.

Pistols and rifles are a far cry from weapons that can fire multiple rounds a second. There's absolutely no good reason to own them.

I know this is a huge right wing talking point, but only the hillbillies and rednecks of America are with you on this one.

"Every major national law enforcement organization in the country supported the federal assault weapons ban and worked for its passage.

Organizations and their policies are run by a relatively small group of people compared to the number that they claim to represent. Therefore it is also possible for an organization to have a different stance on an issue than a large number of it's constituents.

As evidence of this, look at our own government... it is quite possible, as history has shown, for our government to have a policy that the majority don't hold (as the libs were fond of pointing out about Iraq). In addition, the leaders of the organization can afford to hold a policy unpopular with up to 49.9% of it's constituents without risking reprisal.

Your statement of "99.9% of cops" isn't proven by your offered evidence of "every major national law enforcement organization in the country" because:

a) that means that some of the "not so major" organizations don't support the ban.

and/or...

b) up to 49.9% or maybe even more, of those organizations constituents may not support the ban.

You specifically stated the officer's themselves support it... that is different and much more specific than saying organizations do. You haven't backed up your assertion yet.

And you failed to acknowledge or address Larry's point on tempering the veiws of an agent of the State in regards to what freedoms should be infringed upon.

"Google it idiot"

Not my responsibility.

Link it idiot, since you made the ridiculous allegation.

I don't think even Saddam Hussein got 99.9% of the vote back in the the day.

You're an agenda driven liar.

Not a very good one at that.

MORON

I just posted the FACT that EVERY police organization in the country supports an assault weapons ban.

Now, go find a nice dark, 98.6 degree place for your assault weapon.

Then let's end the restriction on carrying six shooters and overturn all gun laws, right?

Sure... except for the registration part. Nothing about that infringes the 2nd Amendment rights and actually serves quite a bit of good.

I have already explained why the six-shooter argument was flawed... and you never answered my point on it.

Six-shooters still can be carried on the hips in many places. People in those places that legally carry aren't exactly dueling in the streets. That shows that the problem in the "Wild West" was because of inadequate ability, and in some cases even a lack of desire, to enforce the laws against murder which were even then on the books.

Your six-shooter argument is a non-sequitur given the fact that openly carrying can and is still done now without the disastrous results you predict.

BABU

My 'agenda' over this matter is to keep assault weapons out of the hands of right wing lunatics and criminals. I own a Glock 9mm. That's enough to 'protect' me. The last thing I want (cops too) are lunatics and criminals running around with assault weapons.

You probably don't even own one, but here you are babbling incoherently, accusing me of being a liar when the facts aren't on your side.

If you can't do your own research don't expect me to ... again.

I just posted the FACT that EVERY police organization in the country supports an assault weapons ban.

And I pointed out that it wasn't proof that 99.9% of their members supports the ban.

By your logic, 99.9% of American's supported torture, troops in Iraq, etc simply because their leadership that sets the policies did.

"MORON

I just posted the FACT that EVERY police organization in the country supports an assault weapons ban."

Until i see a link, it's your idiotic opinion.

Babuenthal,

The point is that he is trying to move the goal posts when being called on a statement he can't support.

First he says that 99.9% percent of the officers support the ban. When asked to back that up, he realized he couldn't so tried to switch gears and claim that the organizations do as proof of his first statement. The argument is a non-sequitur (it doesn't follow) since it is entirely possible for an organization to have one policy (out of many) that isn't supported by a majority of it's members, or is only supported by a slim majority (50.11%).

His proof isn't adequate to back up his original argument and he is trying to bluster his way out of it to little effect.

BTW... one last thing to demonstrate how illogical and dishonest (or intellectually dishonest) AU is being. He said:

I just posted the FACT that EVERY police organization in the country supports an assault weapons ban.

In truth however, he didn't post that "EVERY police organization in the country" (emphasis his) supports the ban. He posted that "every MAJOR NATIONAL law enforcement organization in the country" (emphasis mine) supports the ban.

What doesn't the real statement include, that he tried saying it included?

1) Middling sized organizations.
2) Smaller organizations.
3) Virtually every regional, state, or local organization.

Is it possible that some of those organizations also support the ban? Absolutely... but his provided info makes no such claim, and regardless, it is FAR from "EVERY police organization in the country" as he most certainly claimed.

OK, call around to local police depts. in mid to large sized cities and see just how many "Oh, we LOVE assault weapons and don't want them banned!" responses you get.

Come on. Use your head!

I suppose you right wing nuts wanna also scream about the ban on 'cop killer' bullets too?

The 'right to bear arms' does not extend to 'arms' that cause harm to society at large. If so, you could go to your local gun shop and buy missiles, RPG's, Mortars, Claymore mines (gotta protect that yard!), etc.

A little common sense goes a long way. Not much of it on this thread from the usual knee jerk right wing nuts.

"National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it."

OK, call around to local police depts. in mid to large sized cities and see just how many "Oh, we LOVE assault weapons and don't want them banned!" responses you get.

Come on. Use your head!

So what you are saying is that you don't have any actual facts to back up your numbers and are relying on your mind reading skills. Gotcha, I see where you are coming from now.

I suppose you right wing nuts wanna also scream about the ban on 'cop killer' bullets too?

Nope, not really. But thanks for throwing out another strawman in your desperation to make what you think is a salient point.

The 'right to bear arms' does not extend to 'arms' that cause harm to society at large.

You have still failed to demonstrate how many LEGALLY OWNED assault weapons have harmed this society. If it is illegally owned weapons that have caused a problem, then a ban does nothing to change things. It just infringes Rights for no benefit.

Talk about knee-jerk.

Lets see... police officers MUST support the ban because many police organizations do. Since the organization they belong to has a policy, they must ALL (or 99.9% at least) agree with all the policies... right?

Can you tell me how many police officers also belong to the NRA?

Wow... what a conundrum. What do you think an officer supports when they belong to organizations with conflicting opinions? After all, they must agree with ALL the policies of the organizations they belong to... right?

Just admit it AU. You pulled a number out of your ass because you thought it sounded impressive and that no one would question it. Now that you have been called on it and asked to back up a number that you made up, you are stuck trying to defend the indefensible.

You would get much more respect by just admitting it and moving on.

Of course, Idaho is home to every lunatic "End of Times" and racist group you can imagine. A couple more standoffs like Ruby Ridge (ID) might change his mind .....

One last thing and then I am going to have to let this rest for a while. It is late and you have proven incompetent in the matter of making a case for the ban. This last bit from you was no exception.

First of all, Ruby Ridge was 17 years ago. That is quite a ways back to have to go to try and make a point for a ban now.

Secondly, the guns at Ruby Ridge were ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. There WAS a ban at the time... and it didn't prevent it.

You did nothing to bolster your point with that entire post.

First you repeat the already debunked notion that police organizations supporting the ban means anything more than organizational leadership supporting it. There is nothing to say how many of their constituents also support it.

Then you resort to a story of 17 year old stand-off with illegal weapons when a ban was already in place. Somehow drawing the conclusion that the officers quoted that don't have a problem with legalized assault weapons might change their opinion over getting one more incident in nearly 20 years.

Once you have to stretch that much to make a point you have lost the argument. I don't even laugh at you on that one. It is more of a *headdesk* evoking response.

But I need my A-47 and shoulder fired missiles and armor piercing bullets to deer hunt

Ok... ok.... one last thing. Promise.

Here is something to show you the ridiculousness of using speculation and statistic that were taken out of context. I will rely only on undisputed fact:

In the last 8 years alone, over 3000 Americans have been killed in the US by commercial planes used as weapons. More than the number of people killed in the same time period by assault weapons. Ok so I don't really have facts to back that last part up, but what the hell, a little baseless claim like that shouldn't bother AU.

Anyway, back to the REAL menace... Billions of dollars of structural damage was also done by these planes. We should ban commercial airliners. They are a menace to society! Ban them all or we are all doomed!!!!

And 'assault' weapons are used primarily for? Assault?

No. My "assault" weapon is used for target practice, because when I bought it, the rounds were inexpensive.

But since you're still lumping semi-automatic weapons that look scary in with military style weapons (that no american can have without a permit), your point is moot.

If you need one for 'hunting' you're a piss poor hunter. If you need one to 'protect your home' you're a damn poor shot and need training.

I have a test for you AU. Let's see if you know anything about the weapons you're trying to take off of the streets or, let's see if you're just a sheep following along with the crowd.

Hell My Assault Weapon is used on My French Fries WHEN I am in the mood for them that is.

Hell My Assault Weapon is used on My French Fries WHEN I am in the mood for them that is.

Yes larry, we know that your food is your source of sexual pleasure and that you are insatiable.

Have 2 gallons of ice cream today. I'm buying.

whatever

Yes larry, we know that your food is your source of sexual pleasure and that you are insatiable.

Have 2 gallons of ice cream today. I'm buying.

#211 | Posted by Axiom

He's lost over 30 pounds and is trying to lose more.

He's lost over 30 pounds and is trying to lose more.

Congrats to him, but if he can generalize about gun owners lack of "prowess", I can call him a tubby fat ass.

Make no mistake America! These so called "assault weapons" are simply civilian semi-automatic firearms with a military look. They shoot 100% identically to many hunting rifles and average target shooting long arms. They do not and never will spray bullets that could take out multiple targets with one sweep. They are meant for taking well-placed shots, not for combat. These types of firearms have absolutely nothing to do with the crimes taking place on the Mexican boarder. You'd have to be one heck of a salesman to smuggle guns into Mexico and then try to convince the drug cartels that your semi-automatic "assault rifles" are superior to their fully automatic machine guns and explosives. If Mexicans were armed with these semi-automatic civilian arms, we wouldn't have this boarder problem because the fight would be over in no time or there wouldn't be a fight at all. Statistics show that since the original assault weapons ban expired in 04, these readily available firearms are used in a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes in the US. It's all just another excuse for the government to strip our rights out from under us. How can they even think up such nonsense while our country is in economic turmoil?! Everyone that takes pride in their Constitution which is the foundation of our great nation, please do something about this and join the NRA today before it's too late! They need us and we definitely need them. They are our best hope to victory.

am-unity says:
It used to be a 'right' to carry six shooters everywhere you went too, but common sense did away with that 100 years ago.

#145 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-27 09:45 PM:

it is LEGAL to "open carry" a holstered, loaded firearm in most states.

"The 'right to bear arms' does not extend to 'arms' that cause harm to society at large. If so, you could go to your local gun shop and buy missiles, RPG's, Mortars, Claymore mines (gotta protect that yard!), etc.

A little common sense goes a long way. Not much of it on this thread from the usual knee jerk right wing nuts."

Given AU's posts on this thread, particularly the paragraph above, him/her in any way preaching about common sense is absolutely hilarious. He/she appears to be a typical anti-gun nut with zero knowledge of the subject who rails against those scary "assault" weapons. Do you even know what an assault weapon is (the real definition, not the one made up for the purposes of the previous ban)? Look up the two different definitions and maybe, just maybe, you'll see why what you're saying is asinine.

After, if you still think civilian owned "assault" rifles are capable of spraying multiple bullets per second, look up the national firearms act of 1934.

Still waiting on your reply AU, concerning my post above.

Gun nuts are just that ... nuts

I don't have anything against guns per se. I own a Glock 9mm, 12 gauge, and my dad's Winchester.

If I can't 'protect my home' with those then an assault weapon won't help me, will it?

YOU may abide by the law, but you really want crazies running around with automatic AK-47's who don't?

Everyone in the gun world knows you can pretty easily set up an 'assault weapon' like an AK-47 about any way you choose from tri-burst to fully automatic. I've seen them at the gun range, of course held by smirking NRA members. I've also seen so many illegal clips I lost count.

Here's what a 3 second search found (5 of the hundreds of results):

"And I call bullshit on the assertion anyone can walk around in any state with a holstered pistol."

Are you an idiot, or just blinded by your fear?

My state of AZ allows open carry, WITHOUT a permit or registration.

"We have gun laws for very good reasons."

So why don't we start enforcing those instead of making new ones?

"They aren't to prevent YOU from owning or carrying a gun IF you're a responsible citizen, they're to prevent those who aren't from blowing your ass away."

Except they have the opposite affect of what you say: They DO prevent law abiding citizens from owning then while not affecting criminals from obtaining and using them.

Just WTF do you need an AK-47 for? Deer hunting?

BWAAAAAAAA

"They DO prevent law abiding citizens from owning then while not affecting criminals from obtaining and using them."

BS. Take them off the market and there are less available for criminals to buy. You think illegally owned weapons were snuck in in a cargo container? Guess again. They were stolen from someone who bought them.

Gun nuts are nuts.

I see you managed to duck my challenge to you from before.

Which of those weapons in those two pictures is an assault rifle?

BS. Take them off the market and there are less available for criminals to buy.

Idiot! Criminals aren't interested in buying guns legally. Not before the ban was repealed, and not after.

Hint: a criminal doesn't want a gun traceable back to them. A legally purchased firearm is traceable. The ban does NOTHING to criminals. NOTHING!

I always see people posting on rightwingers trying to use fear. And then you get ignorant bullshit like this from AU which is just a person trying to use fear to make a point and displaying their ignorance of the subject instead:

"YOU may abide by the law, but you really want crazies running around with automatic AK-47's who don't?"

And then there is this little gem of ignorance and illogic:

"You think illegally owned weapons were snuck in in a cargo container? Guess again. They were stolen from someone who bought them."

Where do you think the weapons came from before the ban was lifted? You really didn't think your position or arguments through very well did you?

Yank Moomanfl's chain one more time and that great big head attached to his teenie, weenie body's gonna explode.

BS

Cops only discover weapons are stolen when they confiscate them.

Other than that it's the old mob thing "hey, this fucking gun only has one scratch on it - over the serial number".

Gun nuts are nuts. Observe the nuts on this thread who think they needan AK-47!

Yank Moomanfl's chain one more time and that great big head attached to his teenie, weenie body's gonna explode.

Maybe you would like to try answering my challenge above, doc sarvis, since AmeriU seems to be tied up with ducking and avoiding it.

And with the NRA fighting registering weapons bought at gun shows, we don't really know where ANY of them come from, do we?

If you want to insist they do, tell the class how since rifles don't have to be registered thanks to the NRA, their lobby, and gun nuts ...

AXIOM

You're an obvioue 'gun nut'.

Guess you want to completely avoid the several links (out of hundred) I posted on how to turn an AK-47 into a fully automatic weapon.

I don't owe you an answer for anything.

Which of the two gun in the images above is an assault rifle?

#1 is the obvious choice, so I'll go with Door #2.

Why are you avoiding the challenge AU?

You're around. Posting your own nonsense. Humor me.

Which one is an assault rifle?

Axiom -

Maybe you've answered this already, but how many and what type of firearms do you currently own?

Cops only discover weapons are stolen when they confiscate them.

So then you can prove your assertion. How many stories about assault weapons being used can you find? How many say the guns were stolen from private owners?

Honestly, if you want to make a claim like that, there should be news stories that back you up.

Observe the nuts on this thread who think they needan AK-47!

Look at the anti-gun nut that makes all sorts of claims without proof. The same one that claims that open carry was banned... despite reality. You just prove with every post that you will make up any fact that you need. Reality need not apply.

Tell me again how 99.9% of officers support the ban. Maybe this time you will show me where you got that figure?

You're an obvioue 'gun nut'.

Guess you want to completely avoid the several links (out of hundred) I posted on how to turn an AK-47 into a fully automatic weapon.

I don't owe you an answer for anything.

No, you don't owe me anything. The question is to judge your credability. Either you answer it and prove you have an idea of what you're advocating a ban, or you don't and prove that you're clueless.

The choice is yours.

I'm not a "gun nut". I realize that there have to be certain restrictions on who can get guns and where. I'm not unreasonable about the issue. You, on the other hand, don't really know what you're talking about and I aim to make my point using you as an example.

All you have to do is answer the question.

Maybe you've answered this already, but how many and what type of firearms do you currently own?

I own an Ithaca Model 37 12ga Featherlight, a Yugoslavian SKS and a Springfield 9mm XD subcompact for CC.

Anyone who needs THIS to hunt deer is off their fucking rocker.

I'll interpret this as your answer to my question.

And this his how I'll prove that you are full of shit. Are you ready?

Thank you.

Anyone who needs THIS to hunt deer is off their fucking rocker.

My wife and I are gonna watch a movie. Carry on wingnuts.

#234 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-28 07:17 PM

AU, you just proved what a know-nothing idiot you are when it comes to gun. If I am not mistaken that is a PLASTIC gun.... a TOY!

Never let it be said that AU lets ignorance stop him from forming an opinion.

AU, you just proved what a know-nothing idiot you are when it comes to gun. If I am not mistaken that is a PLASTIC gun.... a TOY!

No, it is not a plastic toy gun. It is a real, working fire arm.

But you are right about one thing. He did prove that he is a know-nothing idiot when it comes to guns. He should turn in his 9mm, his 12ga and his daddy's Winchester to someone who will give them more respect and care instead of letting them sit in the closet collecting rust.

Thank you.

By all means, send the list off to whatever anti-gun agency you're a member of...or whatever it is you do with the information you just collected.

How do you know I'm not lying?

AXIOM,

Neither of those weapons would be adequate for hunting deer. The plastic piece of shit from China would probably be less than adequate for shooting rabbits.

Assault weapons are very clearly defined in the relevant legislation and I doubt even a raving loon like you could justify owning one of them for anything other than masturbatory purposes.

Guess you want to completely avoid the several links (out of hundred) I posted on how to turn an AK-47 into a fully automatic weapon.

I don't owe you an answer for anything.

Oooooo... you posted SEVERAL links! I can post several too.

From this site, links included:

http://www.guncite.com/
gun_control_gcassaul.html

AXIOM,

Neither of those weapons would be adequate for hunting deer. The plastic piece of shit from China would probably be less than adequate for shooting rabbits.

Assault weapons are very clearly defined in the relevant legislation and I doubt even a raving loon like you could justify owning one of them for anything other than masturbatory purposes.

Both of those weapons are the exact same thing. They're 22lr. The only difference is cosmetics. And people head shot deer with 22lr's quite regularly.

Once again you show your own ignorance.

To make another point, with you Axe, I'll refer to the wiki for the Federal Assault Weapons ban.

That gun above, the one you referred to as a "plastic peice of shit from china", would be considered an assault rifle because:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Axiom,

People who hunt deer with .22's are total assholes and real sportsmen think poorly of them.

I do appreciate your agreeing with my point about the 'assault rifle for children' not being worth a shit for shooting rabbits.

I was an avid hunter in my youth and still own several weapons. And I have never wasted a minute's worry that the government wanted to confiscate them. Not one.

As far as my 'ignorance', exactly where did I say anything incorrect in my previous posts? You had already identified both as .22's and I just said they were not good for deer hunting. I made no comment on whether they were 'assault' rifles.

The plastic piece of shit looks so fake, even one of your fellow gun nuts thought it was a toy!!!!

Axiom,

People who hunt deer with .22's are total assholes and real sportsmen think poorly of them.

I do appreciate your agreeing with my point about the 'assault rifle for children' not being worth a shit for shooting rabbits.

I was an avid hunter in my youth and still own several weapons. And I have never wasted a minute's worry that the government wanted to confiscate them. Not one.

I didn't agree with your opinion at all. A 22lr behind the eye is instantaneous death for the deer. Real sportsmen are in awe of the patience required to get that kind of accuracy.

Want to see suffering? Aim for the heart and miss.

Oh, and when you finish masturbating over those photos, Axiom, how about justifying owning an assault rifle for anything other than gun-porn.

Axiom,

You better shut up while you are ahead!!! You are making the point that assault rifles have no purpose with every post!!!!

Your assertion that a real sportsman should always kill on the first shot (which I totally agree with) completely eliminates ANY reason for an assault rifle as a sporting arm. A real sportsman would use a repeating rifle with 2 or 3 extra shots only in the (hopefully) rare case he misses the first and wounds the animal. No need for a clip with 30 rounds.

Fucking idiot!!!

Get educated:

Officer Leroy Pyle debunks myths about semi-autos. He uses demonstrations with live firearms and congressional testimony by DEA, ATF, and FBI agents to show what the truth really is.

Your assertion that a real sportsman should always kill on the first shot (which I totally agree with) completely eliminates ANY reason for an assault rifle as a sporting arm

Show me anything in the "definition" of assault rifle that distinguishes between semi and full automatic in defining what is and isn't an assault rifle?

Your obsessive repeating of this point just highlights your ignorance.

Oh, and when you finish masturbating over those photos, Axiom, how about justifying owning an assault rifle for anything other than gun-porn.

And here we go again.

You can't debate me on the topic because you have no knowledge or you're too emotionally involved, so you result to being insulting.

I own the rifle I own because it was relatively inexpensive from a gun store that had me fill out a NICS form before the sale could be completed.

The ammunition used to be cheap until people became worried that Obama would attempt to ban weapons and/or ammunition and the prices rose. And you assholes claimed that gun owners had nothing to worry about. I guess those fears really aren't all that unfounded after all.

Still...I use my rifle for target practice. A group of us go to the police range occasionally and shoot with civilians, military and police officers. A good time is had by all and much knowledge is exchanged.

Your assertion that a real sportsman should always kill on the first shot (which I totally agree with) completely eliminates ANY reason for an assault rifle as a sporting arm. A real sportsman would use a repeating rifle with 2 or 3 extra shots only in the (hopefully) rare case he misses the first and wounds the animal. No need for a clip with 30 rounds.

Fucking idiot!!!

I never made any assertion. You're grasping at straws, now, hoping to find the long one.

Let's clear up a few misconceptions you seem to have so we can proceed further.

-I don't think I've claimed that I use my rifle for hunting. There are others who do, with great success.

-I don't have a 30 round magazine. I don't have a 20 round magazine. My rifle, aside from the composite telescoping stock and pistol grip, is unmodified. If I were to put the original furniture on it, you would think it was a .270 unless you looked closer.

-I will not engage in a battle of what "real sportsmen" would do. I hunt, I fish and I shoot as recreation. The weapon I use is sufficient to kill the game I am after.

Throughout this entire discussion, I have tried my best to remain cordial with those of you who would wish to infringe upon the rights of your fellow citizens. If you cannot show me the same respect, it is not indicative of a flaw in my argument. It is, however, a chink in your own armor.

axiom one must realize that the basis behind the 2nd amendment was to allow the people the right to defend themselves against a tyranical goverment nothing more nothing less. these twits havent a clue abuout this fact and for this reason they would remove the means of effecutial resistance.

these twits havent a clue abuout this fact and for this reason they would remove the means of effecutial resistance.

Either that or they DO have a clue about this fact, and for that reason WANT to remove the means of effectual resistance.

You forget that some of these people think that more and more government control is the answer to all of our ills.

axiom one must realize that the basis behind the 2nd amendment was to allow the people the right to defend themselves against a tyranical goverment nothing more nothing less.

In that case I'm loading up on bazooka's, RPG's, Mortar, 60mm cannons, Claymore mines, some nuclear tipped artillery, and whatever other heavy armor I feel like. I have a right to defend myself from the government, right? I mean, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun isn't enough according to the dingbats.

What? You mean I CAN'T legally buy bazookas, RPG's, mortars, Claymore mines, or nuclear tipped artillery? Those damn commies trying to take away my right to defend myself against my own government !!! Pathetic !!

What's next? Making hollow point and armor piercing ammo illegal??!!! Those cops have a lot of nerve taking away my right to defend myself!!!!

(snark)

AU... get snarky all you want. After all the "facts" you tried making up to support your view, and the numerous times you ignored a challenge to your viewpoint you have no more credibility on this issue than BBob does on 9/11.

Sure, whatever you say, MOOMAN

The one time I talked to Axiom a few months he was an asshole. So, I could care less about what he does or doesn't think about anything.

I don't give a flying crap about what you or anyone else thinks of my stance on assault weapons. The cops are against them. That's good enough for me. I've pointed out time and again that there are a plethora of weapons that are banned for private use. Any gun that can be rigged to fire fully automatic doesn't belong in private hands. The nuts who want them are just the kind of nuts that shouldn't have them. Ruby Ridge, ID comes to mind....

My last comment on this subject is related to my first: People who need assault weapons to feel like a man must have small dicks and/or be piss poor shots.

BTW, MOOMAN

You've always been a pretty decent fellow, so don't take what I said personally...

AU:

Your credibility is shot. Anything you say from this point out is interpreted as the clueless rantings of an over-emotional individual. You are incapable of distinguishing the difference between what you wish to ban and what you consider a perfectly legal hunting weapon.

The problem is that individuals like you and the current administration and its officials is that you don't want to stop at "Assault Rifles". The NRA has consistently compromised in an effort to stem the constant 2nd Amendment infringement by the left in this country.

Give an inch, you take a mile. This is historical fact.

You are the type who will gladly submit and hand over your guns if they government deems them to be unnecessary to you. It enrages you that others would not do the same.

I have a right to defend myself from the government, right?

I also have the right to defend myself from individuals. With this country edging ever-so-close to economic collapse (remember, obama and bush both said we narrowly avoided it), civil unrest reveals itself to be a horribly real possibility and not just the maniacal fantasies of gun nuts.

Should I sit back and let scavengers and thieves pick over what I have worked for because they were too busy buying flat screen tv's and Escalades and giant half-million-dollar homes instead of preparing to feed their family in a time of emergency?

What's next? Making hollow point and armor piercing ammo illegal??!!!

The one time I talked to Axiom a few months he was an asshole. So, I could care less about what he does or doesn't think about anything.

So what if he was an asshole? Even assholes can have knowledge you don't. Ignore that knowledge, regardless of the source and you become willfully ignorant.

The cops are against them.

You obviously didn't pay attention (as I believe I stated in my last post) to anything I posted on this. Including the video from a cop that educates on this very subject, and the video of testimony refuting several of your points from DEA, ATF, and FBI agents.

The very fact that you "don't give a flying crap" what I "or anyone else thinks" about your stance, once again is demonstrating willful ignorance. You have the "I have my mind made up and don't confuse me with the facts" attitude.

Any gun that can be rigged to fire fully automatic doesn't belong in private hands.

That is another ill-thought-out position. There are things all over your house that are much easier to get that can kill people. For that matter, you could make a bomb with sufficient power to take out a large number of people just from high nitrate fertilizer from home depot, and black powder reload and canon fuse obtainable from any gun shop.

You also obviously didn't bother with the links I posted refuting your claims of how easy or common it is to modify those weapons.

You also obviously ignored my debunking of your Ruby Ridge line of "reasoning". Hint: those guns were illegally obtained... the ban doesn't stop anyone from obtaining a weapon illegally.

My last comment on this subject is related to my first: People who need assault weapons to feel like a man must have small dicks and/or be piss poor shots.

And people that whine about a subject they are obviously ignorant on, and use lies to promote fear to get their way have no balls.

And if I was such a decent person in your eyes, you would actually debate this instead of ignoring stuff that refutes you and stop resorting to "little dick" comments when you find you can't refute the actual facts.

" didn't agree with your opinion at all. A 22lr behind the eye is instantaneous death for the deer. Real sportsmen are in awe of the patience required to get that kind of accuracy.

Want to see suffering? Aim for the heart and miss."

What is more likely, missing the heart or missing directly behind the eye? 22lr is wrong for deer hunting and I'm pretty sure it's illegal in most states.

"No need for a clip with 30 rounds."

It's not a clip. It's a magazine.

"Oh, and when you finish masturbating over those photos, Axiom, how about justifying owning an assault rifle for anything other than gun-porn."

What's your stance on muscle cars? In your eyes should everyone drive a base model 4 cylinder since anything more is unnecessary? The point is it doesn't mean dick if you or anyone thinks there's a "good" reason. Keep your nose out of my hobby and I'll do the same.

"In that case I'm loading up on bazooka's, RPG's, Mortar, 60mm cannons, Claymore mines, some nuclear tipped artillery, and whatever other heavy armor I feel like. I have a right to defend myself from the government, right? I mean, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun isn't enough according to the dingbats. "

Fuckin idiot. You sound like Boob.

I don't personally own a weapon like the one in the link above, but if I choose to buy one in the future I don't have to explain why to anyone for any reason. I can own one for the simple reason that I think they look sweet in the gun safe. Guess what, tough shit. Mind your own fucking business.

" Making hollow point and armor piercing ammo illegal??!!!"

What exactly is "armor piercing ammo?" Seems like another scary, ambiguous term people like you use because you don't know what you're talking about. More than likely, anything similar to military anti-armor rounds is already illegal, which basically leaves ballistic tipped rifle cartridges which are designed to drop game more effectively. Ban that, you ban hunting since hunting with full metal jacket is illegal (in all the states I know of, correct me if I'm wrong).

"I don't give a flying crap about what you or anyone else thinks of my stance on assault weapons."

Yeah, God forbid you listen to more knowledgeable people and try to learn something. Better to go with the knee jerk, uninformed position.

"The cops are against them."

You've yet to show this to be true.

Also, the cops are against many things I'm sure. Do you think we should change the laws to reflect what cops want?

"I've pointed out time and again that there are a plethora of weapons that are banned for private use."

Many of which most "gun nuts" would probably agree with.

The one time I talked to Axiom a few months he was an asshole.

I'm sorry, when was this?

I've rarely had a conversation with anyone on this site save for the few times I listened to the streams being broadcast by Hans and Briwo.

What is more likely, missing the heart or missing directly behind the eye? 22lr is wrong for deer hunting and I'm pretty sure it's illegal in most states.

It all depends on the skill of the person holding the rifle. I don't know about the legality, but I know two guys from work who've dropped deer with a 22.

It all depends on the skill of the person holding the rifle. I don't know about the legality, but I know two guys from work who've dropped deer with a 22.

Axiom, it is certainly possible, but most hunters I know are against .22lr rounds being used for deer hunting. They are much better suited for squirrel, rabbit, racoons, etc. It is mainly poachers that use the .22lr for deer.

With deer if you miss your clean kill shot, which is VERY easy to do, they can run off and there will be very little, if any, blood to track them with. They can take a long time to die, if they die at all. They could actually survive the shot only to live for a while with a large amount of pain, or die much later from infection.

Regardless though, the .22lr does have a VERY legitimate hunting use against small game, so debate in regards to deer hunting is moot.

Axiom, it is certainly possible, but most hunters I know are against .22lr rounds being used for deer hunting. They are much better suited for squirrel, rabbit, racoons, etc. It is mainly poachers that use the .22lr for deer.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. My apologies.

I don't hunt large game with a .22 and I would never advocate anyone doing so, but that doesn't mean that it can't be used to kill large game, and it doesn't mean that some people don't do it.

Axiom,

I also must have been unclear.

The original statement that kicked this debate about .22lr's and deer hunting was this one by Axe:

"People who hunt deer with .22's are total assholes and real sportsmen think poorly of them."

That statement was a strawman, but it really took the debate on a tagent that played right into the anti-gun nuts' hands.

Of course .22's aren't used for deer hunting by responsible hunters. They are used for small game hunting which is perfectly legitimate.

The better response to Axe would have been to point his argument out as a strawman and move on.

Live and learn.

However, there seems to be no educating the likes of Axe and AU since they obviously don't want to dispel their ignorance and would rather cling to their uninformed ideology.

However, there seems to be no educating the likes of Axe and AU since they obviously don't want to dispel their ignorance and would rather cling to their uninformed ideology.

Admission time!

I used to be the same as them, in a small way.

I couldn't possibly understand why any person would need what the government qualified as an assault rifle. I didn't see a purpose in it.

Then, one day I was educated by a person who practiced his right responsibly and made every effort to educate anyone who had questions, no matter what the question was.

That was the day that I started giving a shit. Not just about my rights as an American, but everyone's rights and the desire to see that none of them are ever infringed upon.

Mookow and Axiom,

You fuckers are amazing with your little mutual masturbation thread.

You wail about your 'rights' while you never said a fucking word while Dickless and Boy Blunder raped the constitution and shredded rights far more important that the rights of idiots to buy bazookas at WalFart.

If the founding fathers are to be taken literally, then you assclowns should be limited to the arms available at the time of the constitution's writing. Single shot muskets. But at least you won't be limited to the pussy .50 cal limit. Oh, yeah. You can have all the muzzle loading cannon and seige weapons you want, too. Those will come in really handy in case your local Taco Bell has a shooting and you are caught in the crossfire (or whatever your personal dipshit fantasy is.)

You may resume your reacharound already in progress.

And once again, any asshole that hunts deer with a .22 should be gut shot and left to die deep, deep in the woods.

Axiom,

Next time you are at the shooting range, take a look around. The real men aren't playing Rambo with crap like your wannabe assault rifle. They are shooting weapons that are as much works of art as machines of destruction. Their guns have real wood stocks. The actions have been tuned by an actual gunsmith, not some third world factory drone. They hand load their own rounds, not because they are miserable cheapskates, but because they want better precision and enjoy the process.

Then look at the Rambo assholes and their cheap imported third world crap. Do any of you losers have a decent American made ANYTHING? I bet you drive a Korean made car to the range and shoot CZ ammo in a crappy rifle made in Pakistan.

And before you call me full of shit, I used to shoot trap, skeet and competition pistol. I hand loaded nearly every round and I used (and still own) a Remington 1100 20 gauge for skeet, a Winchester Model 52 12 gauge for trap, and my favorite pistol was a Smith Model 52. You probably haven't a clue what the last two are, but they are pretty nice American Made works of gunsmithing art.

I couldn't possibly understand why any person would need what the government qualified as an assault rifle.

The fact is, it doesn't matter what they think we need now.

Right now my son (7 years old) doesn't see a need for free speech to criticize the government. To a 7 year old, the President is great no matter who he is. 7 year olds are some of the most patriotic people on the planet unless they have been politically indoctrinated by their parents already. In which case they are just mindless robots, since they generally don't understand enough about life to form their own opinion on the issues.

But I digress. My son doesn't see a need for free speech to criticize the government, as most 7 year olds wouldn't. That doesn't mean he should give up that right. The fact that he doesn't see a need doesn't mean that there won't ever BE a need for it. Once you give it up, getting it back if you need it will be well nigh impossible.

The founding fathers understood this, and most were VERY vocal as to why it MUST be included in the Constitution.

People like AU and Axe are like my son. To ignorant to understand what they are really giving up and why they shouldn't. All they can see, is that they don't have a need for it right now. They don't look to the future and it's various possibilities.

Will Obama start rounding everyone up and start putting bullets in the heads of dissenters if we allow our assault rifles to be taken? Probably not. It doesn't mean it is impossible, but I don't think it is likely. But how about another Administration in 8 years, or 16 years, or 80 years?

It is too easy to fall into the "it can't happen to us" mentality. We should NEVER be so comfortable with our rulers that we give up our liberties to them. Especially the liberties that allow us to defend ourselves from them, or at least makes it an extremely difficult proposition for them to take the rest.

People like AU and Axe are the type of people that Benjamin Franklin said deserve neither liberty nor security.

I am sorry if I offended any Remington fans. The 1100 was probably one of the best autoloading shotguns ever made. It is just not as unique as the other two.

You fuckers are amazing with your little mutual masturbation thread...

You may resume your reacharound already in progress.

Axe, your obsession with gay masturbation is disturbing. I think Freud would have had a field day with you. You should just come out of the closet and get it over with.

BTW... I was very vocal about the Patriot Act. I hated it then, and I still do now. But don't let the facts stop you, they haven't so far.

Very FUNNY, MooKow.

Where were you when Smirky the Wonder Chimp was selling us out 6 years ago with the 'Patriot' act? Stupid cocksuckers like you have VERY SHORT memories and NO MORAL COMPASS.

Where were you when Smirky the Wonder Chimp was selling us out 6 years ago with the 'Patriot' act?...

VERY SHORT memories and NO MORAL COMPASS.

Um... I believe I just answered that in my last post, Axe. Talk about very short memories and no moral compass! You can't even remember what I wrote between the time you read it and the time you post on it.

Stupid cocksuckers

Damn... there you go with the gay stuff again. Just get a boyfriend and be done with it. You will feel much better about yourself in the long run rather than trying to keep hiding who you are and being miserable. As you obviously are.

Then look at the Rambo assholes and their cheap imported third world crap.

Okay, maybe I missed that, what with your defending the moron in chief for everything else he ever fucked up. If so, I apologize.

It is just that I am not a paranoid pants pisser that thinks that because I can't buy a fully automatic Thompson .45 cal machine gun down at the corner gas station that next week the government is coming after my shotguns.

Real people have real brains and can see that distinction. You whiners should be more worried about a crazy whack-job like Joe the Anal Plumber getting elected and deciding that the world is out to get him and ordering all the guns confiscated. A right wing douche bag is the most likely dictator to pull shit like that.

Okay, maybe I missed that, what with your defending the moron in chief for everything else he ever fucked up

Like what? The out of control spending that I was against then, just as I am against it now in the new administration?

You obviously don't have a clue about me.

Here are some cliff notes for your next IQ test: The square peg goes in the SQUARE hole. Round pegs go in the round hole. That should double your score... to about 50.

Real people have real brains...

And yet, you are intent on proving you have none.

Axe,
Did you actually learn anything while at the range or did you just shoot? Your constant use of assault rifle in the lay, bullshit made-up-sort of way belies you having any in depth knowledge. Unless, of course, you use it improperly purposefully.

Any weapon you or I could buy is NOT an assault rifle. A clone of a military rifle is NOT an assault rifle. The definition laid out in the Brady bill is incorrect and is purposefully vague to mop of any weapons that aren't banned due to clones of military pieces.

I agree that you seem to be a little too preoccupied with gay sex.

Axiom,

Your previous posts made it appear that you needed to buy assault rifles because they were cheap and you couldn't afford decent guns.

If you have the 28 gauge Model 37, that obviously isn't the case. Do your shooting buddies call you a wuss because it isn't a larger bore. You never mentioned shooting skeet. You don't hunt, so why do you have the Ithica (other than that just owing a fine gun like that would be nice in and of itself)?

"that aren't banned due to clones of military pieces."

Whoops. Should read "that aren't banned due to being clones of military pieces."

It is just that I am not a paranoid pants pisser that thinks that because I can't buy a fully automatic Thompson .45 cal machine gun down at the corner gas station that next week the government is coming after my shotguns.

I don't use that as a reason for thinking to government is after my guns. I use their own words.

They fucking said it. The words came out of their mouths. This isn't some fantasy we've made up.

Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama...all of them wish to step all over the second amendment and call it "fair gun regulation".

Real people have real brains and can see that distinction. You whiners should be more worried about a crazy whack-job like Joe the Anal Plumber getting elected and deciding that the world is out to get him and ordering all the guns confiscated. A right wing douche bag is the most likely dictator to pull shit like that.

And here is where your assumptions get you in trouble.

Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber are the types of people that turned me off to the so-called conservatives. I have no desire to see them sworn in to public service. Ever.

You see, though, I can pay attention to multiple topics at the same time. While I'm giving you a schooling here, on this thread, I'm also rocking a totally awesome game of chess online with my uncle 100 miles away.

That's what people with brains do.

JPW,

It is obvious that he doesn't have a clue, and doesn't want one.

If he did he would understand that "fully automatic" and "assault rifle", even as defined in the legislation, are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT things.

Yet despite that having been pointed out more than once he still wants to harp on that same tired, and well debunked, talking point.

Ignorance I can educate... but there is no helping that level of stupid outside of donating a drool bucket.

"It is just that I am not a paranoid pants pisser that thinks that because I can't buy a fully automatic Thompson .45 cal machine gun down at the corner gas station that next week the government is coming after my shotguns."

This argument isn't about the ability to buy automatic weapons. No one is arguing that and it's been illegal since the 1930's. Have any other strawmen?

If you have the 28 gauge Model 37, that obviously isn't the case. Do your shooting buddies call you a wuss because it isn't a larger bore. You never mentioned shooting skeet. You don't hunt, so why do you have the Ithica (other than that just owing a fine gun like that would be nice in and of itself)?

It's a 12ga Featherlight. It does everything I need it to do.

Your previous posts made it appear that you needed to buy assault rifles because they were cheap and you couldn't afford decent guns.

My previous posts said that I bought the gun because it was inexpensive, not because I am poor. If I was in a position where I was hurting for money, buying a gun would be the last thing on my mind. In fact, given the prices of firearms right now, I'd make a 300% profit from selling the gun.

I bought the gun because I wanted to take something of my own to the range, but I was not sure what would suit me best. I bought it for 95 bucks. Ammo was inexpensive and I could go plinking for hours and not dig myself into a hole monetarily speaking.

MOOKOW,

Please try to keep up. I was referencing an already existing law that prevents the ownership of FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. I cited a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon in my example. The law has been on the books for decades.

I know as much or more about the subject as you do.

My point is that it is still legal to own most any gun a reasonable person would want. It is unlikely that any politician would risk his seat trying to outlaw the weapons 90 percent of the population is comfortable with. They know the wackjobs at the 10% of either end of the spectrum don't count so they will ignore them.

Total ban on guns is as unlikely as legal ownership of private suitcase nuclear weapons.

You pants pissers thrive on your paranoia, so keep on whining. The rest of us will just laugh, shake our heads and keep on with our lives.

MOOKOW,

Please try to keep up.

It's hard not to when you are mental circles at a pace my kids could outrun.

I was referencing an already existing law that prevents the ownership of FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons.

Which has been in place since the 1930's, has absolutely nothing to do with the present ban being discussed, and was a complete strawman on your part.

I know as much or more about the subject as you do.

Apparently not or you wouldn't need strawman arguments.

Mookow,

perhaps I used words that were too large for you.

Law in place many years....

Still legal to own guns....

No need to worry...

Be happy.....

Now change your Depends and go to bed.

You pants pissers thrive on your paranoia, so keep on whining.

The ones pissing their pants are the ones like you going "oh NO!!!! They have ASSAULT WEAPONS!".

When you can't even define what an assault weapon is, or how it differs from a regular weapon.

Go ahead... try it. Try defining what makes a weapon an assault weapon, and explain why it is a good idea to ban them. Show how much you know. I will try to keep the laughing down to a dull roar.

Nothing wrong with the following (copied from far up this thread):

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

I don't really give a shit if they pass this or not other than it would really piss off the Rtards and anything that pisses off the Rtards so cheaply is a good deal as far as I can tell.

I don't see anything here that threatens my rights at all.

If it helps maintain the Permanent Republican Minority, that is icing on the cake.

So, you can cut and paste. That doesn't demonstrate knowledge. And you still don't explain how they are different from other weapons not considered "assault" class.

Ok... point by point...

SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON

Semiautomatic... not automatic.

Semiautomatic means "one pull of the trigger = one shot" just like all the legal guns. That includes most modern guns that aren't revolvers, bolt action, or breach loading. So that doesn't define an "assault weapon". Can you explain why the models listed are banned if they are only semiautomatic as many guns are? Testimony from officers at the time of the ban said they aren't easily modified to automatic (i.e. that is a myth) and that they aren't more powerful.... so why?

Next point in the next post....

I will include my comments on the next one line by line...

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine

That includes most modern rifles...

and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

Why is this even in there? That is mainly cosmetic and doesn't contribute to the letality. Even a .22 rifle can have this added as the officer in the video I posted earlier demonstrated.

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

So... a folding stock and a pistol grip on the body of a normal .22 rifle would be enough to make it an "assault weapon". This is the height of stupidity.

The only other one of note is the "grenade launcher line" which is just fucking stupid since grenades are illegal for private ownership under a totally separate law.

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine

Again this describes any legal 9mm pistol on the market...

and has at least 2 of--

Again it only takes two to qualify...

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

Does this add to the letality in some magical way?

(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

Considering those things are already mostly illegal... the threading is a moot point and adds no lethality in and of itself... yet those two things together somehow make a gun an "assault weapon".

I don't really give a shit if they pass this or not other than it would really piss off the Rtards

Which really just highlights your extreme stupidity.

You don't actually care about the issue and whether it is a good or bad idea... as long as it pisses off people you don't like.

What a fucking moron you prove yourself to be.

BTW... most of the items on that list are ones that a criminal could add to a legal weapon on their own regardless of a law.

Threading? Shrouds? Folding stocks? Pistol grips? Not a problem. A good machine shop can handle the difficult parts of those.

And aren't these laws meant to stop the criminals? Criminals that by definition don't care about the law?

Mooman-
I'd rather narrow down the lethal criminal class to those with their own machine shop. It would at least let me know that I was dealing with professionals.

I'd rather narrow down the lethal criminal class to those with their own machine shop.

Who said they have to have their own? Who said they even have to know someone that has one? The gun they acquire illegally just has to have passed through one at some point and time.

This law doesn't narrow a damn thing because criminals aren't acquiring their weapons legally.

It would at least let me know that I was dealing with professionals.

No it wouldn't. Anyone can pick up suitable equipment at Home Depot. It is also available in most high school shops.

And if you think they couldn't get away with a modification like that at school, you are incredibly naive. They don't even need to have the whole weapon with them, just the piece such as the barrel only, that they want to modify.

A couple of holes drilled, and the rest can be done at home.

Here... lets put this in some real perspective...

It is like banning the sale of shotguns with a barrel length shorter than 3 feet...

Does that stop anyone with a hacksaw from making a sawed off shotgun?

Even though they are illegal have you heard of crimes involving them? Columbine anyone?

As I said... criminals don't give a shit about the law and what it says about what weapons they can have. And it won't stop them from getting them... even if they are kids.

The ban only limits people that care about following the law.

This law doesn't narrow a damn thing because criminals aren't acquiring their weapons legally.

How do you know that? In 2/3rds of the states you can waltz into a gun show and buy an AK-47 no questions asked, no background check, no nada but 'show me the money'. There are web sites that give step by step instructions how to make them fully automatic in under an hour.

From a frustrated ATF Agent on guns in the hands of criminals and where they get them (in response to the ridiculous assertion by someone earlier that they're imported):

"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts."

Not a coincidence that countries with very restrictive gun laws seldom have gun related crime.

As long as the NRA fights reasonable waiting periods for gun show purchases they're going to look foolish to those of us who don't have a beef with gun ownership, but wish the gun crowd could muster a little common sense.

In 2/3rds of the states you can waltz into a gun show and buy an AK-47 no questions asked, no background check, no nada but 'show me the money'.

Then change the law to require the same registration at gun shows that is required elsewhere.

That would make more sense than making a law banning a bullshit and fictional class of weapons based on an illogical and vague set of criteria that criminals don't give a shit to follow in the first place.

Then change the law to require the same registration at gun shows that is required elsewhere.

Why are the NRA and gun owners fighting this?

I should say 'gun enthusiasts'. I'm a gun owner myself, and think it's ridiculous that anyone can purchase anything but a pistol or machine gun at a gun show and drive away with it no questions asked.

As long as the NRA fights reasonable waiting periods for gun show purchases...

That is a totally separate issue from the proposed gun ban and a total deflection on your part.

Why are the NRA and gun owners fighting this?

Because it is just one more restriction out of many I would suppose.

I am not here to, nor do I care to, defend all of the NRA's policies.

What does that have to do with this ban?

MOOMAN

As I pointed out in post #302, you can convert an AK-47 to fully automatic in under an hour - with step by step instructions available to you right this second on the internet.

Like this:

That isn't fiction

As I pointed out in post #302, you can convert an AK-47 to fully automatic in under an hour

and as I pointed out with expert testimony before Congress from a police officer... that contention is hardly ever done, and not as easy as you make it sound.

I also pointed out that you can make a powerful bomb for much less money, time, effort, or expertise.

Why are the NRA and gun owners fighting this?

Because it is just one more restriction out of many I would suppose.

Restrictions that protect law abiding citizens. No one's stopping anyone who can pass a background check from buying a pistol in all 50 states. It's a strawman gun enthusiasts love to roll out though.

Again, I'm sticking to what the cops say. They're the ones who have to deal with all the gang violence and shootings with TEC-9's, UZI's, and retrofitted AK-47's every night.

I'm hitting the sack. WAY past my bedtime. Have a good Sunday

AU :-)

I'd imagine it's hard to throw a bomb in a 'drive by' from a moving car ...

I posted the link on converting an AK-47. Doesn't sound too hard to me.

OK, I'm off to bed for real now.

Have a good Sunday, MOOMAN

Restrictions that protect law abiding citizens.

Still plugging away at a deflection eh? Who cares what the NRA is saying about that? It has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

Again, I'm sticking to what the cops say.

How many cops was that again? 99.9% that you can't prove actually support your claim. Heh heh

Actually I am sticking with what the cops say too. Except I actually provided expert testimony from them, and an educational video from an officer that is consulted by the DEA, ATF, and FBI.

And you have.... an article about organizational leaders on one issue of many that proves nothing about the vast numbers that comprise the organization.

No one's stopping anyone who can pass a background check from buying a pistol in all 50 states. It's a strawman

Yes it is a strawman... by you since no one here on the opposite side of the argument from you has suggested otherwise.

I posted the link on converting an AK-47. Doesn't sound too hard to me.

It wouldn't to the uninformed and naive, as is often the case no matter what the subject.

For example, there is a language called DarkBASIC for programming 3D games. It has all the features necessary to make a game similar to World of Warcraft. The advertising also talks about how easy it is to learn to program with.

The naive and ignorant come onto the forums all the time talking about making the next big game to rival World of Warcraft... and promptly get laughed at. Those that know a thing or two realize it is FAR from that easy to make a game of that type of even poor quality even with DarkBASIC, never mind a game of the quality of World of Warcraft. But yet a new noob shows up every day making the same claim.

I'd imagine it's hard to throw a bomb in a 'drive by' from a moving car ...

Why would it be any harder than throwing an newspaper? That is done every day, and sometimes with great accuracy.

Bombs aren't bullets, you don't have to have good aim. You just have to get in the general neighborhood of the target.

Ever hear of a hand grenade? That is just a small bomb. A little home made black powder in a coffee can with some nails or ball bearings would have the same effect.

Black powder can be made from powdered sugar, potassium nitrate (stump remover from Home Depot), and charcoal.

For that matter, just make a potato gun with a barrel big enough to hold a soup can and you have a grenade launcher.

Gee... sounds really hard.

As long as the NRA fights reasonable waiting periods for gun show purchases they're going to look foolish to those of us who don't have a beef with gun ownership, but wish the gun crowd could muster a little common sense.

But you aren't advocating waiting periods. You're advocating outright bans on weapons you deem scarey, and I've already proven you have zero ability to discern an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle".

Then change the law to require the same registration at gun shows that is required elsewhere.

It is the same for registered gun dealers. But the point behind a gun show is the ability to trade one gun for another. Unregistered dealers do not have to have the person fill out a NICS form. Most times they don't even write down any information. They'll look at your ID and that's enough for them.

Kinda stupid, if you ask me.

I should say 'gun enthusiasts'. I'm a gun owner myself, and think it's ridiculous that anyone can purchase anything but a pistol or machine gun at a gun show and drive away with it no questions asked.

Not exactly. You're not telling the whole story for some reason. Either you want to inspire fear in people, or you're ignorant to what goes on in gun shows. Seeing as how you think that .22lr above is an assault weapon, I know which one I'm going to guess.

I'd imagine it's hard to throw a bomb in a 'drive by' from a moving car ...

Really? Not very imaginative, are you?

Well, I guess if they ban TEC 9's, UZI's, and AK-47's (among others) the next threat will be home made potato guns, eh? I'd say a federal ban may be necessary. In Idaho you can still get a license for a machine gun. As the article I posted above an ATF Agent broke down where guns used during crimes come from. One would assume many of them were once legally sold somewhere in the U.S., unless you choose to call the ATF agent a liar.

Having delivered the newspaper from a car during college, I can tell you throwing them from a car isn't as easy as you imply if you don't want to get your ass blown up in the process.