Record gun sales sweep nation

[OCGuy]

All you have to do is look at Katrina to realize just how fragile our lives are.

Most city-dwellers are completely reliant on going to the grocery store once a week in order to survive. What if something happens, and you cant get your fresh water/groceries/etc?

For how "advanced" we are as a people, all it takes is ONE incident to bring us back to our primal roots. And you can bet it is desirable to have a gun if/when that ever happens.

And I'm not referring to terrorism, although that is possible. Like I said above about Katrina, mother nature is a bitch.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chucky2
But my Playstation is worth something, while they're worth nothing...actually, shooting them saves us money, it lets us not have to pay for their incarceration.

For those who commit crime it's simple: You take your life and put it into the hands of others and their mercy.

And that's the way it should be...removing that check lets criminals with little else to lose operate with little fear of meaningful consequences.

Chuck

By following that logic you might as well do away with our criminal justice system all together which is obviously ludicrous. Every crime now punishable by death either by those in government or any civilian who gets to them first....are you nuts?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I can honestly say that I really do not know many liberals who are against banning all guns. I mean, I know they are out there, but most understand your logic to the point where they realize some firearms are necessary a good thing for the community. You really shouldn't stereotype everyone who leans more to the left as radical extremists. At the same time, I know that most understand that lines need to be drawn as well. Hand guns in your home? Ok. Automatic assault rifles designed for combat in the Marines, Uhhh...no. What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Once again, who the hell is talking about "automatic" weapons?!?

"Assault rifles" are nothing more than semi-automatic hunting rifles with lighter parts and longer magazines.

Stop confusing the issue with the irrelevant and inaccurate "automatic" bullshit.

However, what I also notice is that the definition of what constitutes as a vigilante differs between hardcore Amendment 2 supporters and those who are either somewhere in the middle or more liberal. Personally, I am ok with defending one's property, but I am not ok with taking the law into your own hands just because you believe that the criminal deserves the punishment you have decided for them. We have a court system for a reason and when we can use it we should. We shouldn't skip it just because we know we can get away with killing someone by shooting them in the back as they are already running down the street with intent to kill them and reclaim your Playstation. Nor should we choose to kill just because we think they might get away and not get caught by the authorities. Big difference and it does come down to how much one believes in our justice system.

If they're in my house, or trying to carjack me, they die. Otherwise, if they're lucky enough to get outside before I catch them, I have no problem letting them run off into the night with my stuff. That's the point where any reasonable person would let the Police do their job. Very rarely do you hear of anyone gunning down a fleeing burglar after they've left the property.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
However, what I also notice is that the definition of what constitutes as a vigilante differs between hardcore Amendment 2 supporters and those who are either somewhere in the middle or more liberal. Personally, I am ok with defending one's property, but I am not ok with taking the law into your own hands just because you believe that the criminal deserves the punishment you have decided for them. We have a court system for a reason and when we can use it we should. We shouldn't skip it just because we know we can get away with killing someone by shooting them in the back as they are already running down the street with intent to kill them and reclaim your Playstation. Nor should we choose to kill just because we think they might get away and not get caught by the authorities. Big difference and it does come down to how much one believes in our justice system.

If they're in my house, or trying to carjack me, they die. Otherwise, if they're lucky enough to get outside before I catch them, I have no problem letting them run off into the night with my stuff. That's the point where any reasonable person would let the Police do their job. Very rarely do you hear of anyone gunning down a fleeing burglar after they've left the property.

Let us hope that I have just coincidentally come across too many stories of people who believe otherwise. Some of these stories have come straight from the mouths of posters here and pretty much all of them are from Texas. Seriously though, I hope you are right and what I have been exposed to is nothing but rare cases of weirdo extremists. I know they are not all like that. My fear is that there are still many.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

Really? There are that many killers out there that are lurking, but they are holding off because they dont have a suppressor?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

Really? There are that many killers out there that are lurking, but they are holding off because they dont have a suppressor?

:laugh:

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

There are far more people who would love a suppressor for legitimate uses like hunting (while a suppressed hunting rifle will still startle animals, it tends not to immediately scatter them and, because it reduces recoil and allows better follow-through, a suppressor allows a hunter to get a clean second shot more reliably and thereby reduce the game animal's suffering) than there are latent assassins.

Suppressors reduce the sound to something similar to a loud staple gun. Still more than enough noise to call attention to yourself. Movies are not real life. Suppressors do not turn a firearm's report into a quiet little "spit" sound.

Sorry, but the actual fact is that most people want a suppressor so that they can use their .22 rifle for plinking without needing to wear bulky and uncomfortable earmuffs.

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

jesus christ you are so full of it

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

:roll:

There are areas in some countries that require suppressors when shooting. And in others it's considered polite. You watch too many movies.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

Really? There are that many killers out there that are lurking, but they are holding off because they dont have a suppressor?

:laugh:

This is getting ridiculous.

I didn't realize that I was surrounded by millions of would-be assassins! :laugh: :roll:

Also, as Zen pointed out, real silencers are much louder than they portray them to be in movies... (which was actually a big let-down when I first used one myself... I guess all of my assassin fantasies went out the window! lol)

Then again, WTF does any of this have to do with "automatic" weapons and suppressors?!? It's almost as though some here are bringing them up to intentionally confuse the issue!

Assault rifles != Automatic weapons with suppressors

 

[Xavier434]

Sigh...if I am wrong, then where should the line be drawn? It needs to be drawn.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I didn't realize that I was surrounded by millions of would-be assassins! :laugh: :roll:

Also, as Zen pointed out, real silencers are not even close to being as quiet as they portray them to be in movies...

Then again, WTF does any of this have to do with "automatic" weapons and suppressors?!? It's almost as though some here are bringing them up to intentionally confuse the issue!

Assault rifles != Automatic weapons with suppressors

The original intent of this thread was retarded to begin with.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What's next? Grenades? Silencers? Trip mines?

Silencers (properly "suppressors" since the most assuredly do not make a firearm "silent" in any way; they don't even make them as quiet as they are in movies) are wonderful devices that can really help to save people's hearing. Objectively, suppressors stand to be a tremendous help with cutting down the noise inherent to rifle ranges. Unfortunately, most people have severely inaccurate perceptions about the chief use of a suppressor and about just how quiet it can actually make a firearm.

ZV

Face it. Most people that want a suppressor because they do not want others hearing them shoot someone else. I understand there is a more reasonable use of them, but those devices rightfully should remain very difficult to obtain throughout the majority of the US. Again, you need to draw the line somewhere.

There are far more people who would love a suppressor for legitimate uses like hunting (while a suppressed hunting rifle will still startle animals, it tends not to immediately scatter them and, because it reduces recoil and allows better follow-through, a suppressor allows a hunter to get a clean second shot more reliably and thereby reduce the game animal's suffering) than there are latent assassins.

Suppressors reduce the sound to something similar to a loud staple gun. Still more than enough noise to call attention to yourself. Movies are not real life. Suppressors do not turn a firearm's report into a quiet little "spit" sound.

Sorry, but the actual fact is that most people want a suppressor so that they can use their .22 rifle for plinking without needing to wear bulky and uncomfortable earmuffs.

ZV

Just to be clear, I've only ever heard one weapon equipped with a silencer fired before in person, and it was eerily quiet. It wasn't as quiet as the movies, but it was damned close. My AF buddy has a Mak with the integrated suppressor, I think it was designed to be a KGB assassin's weapon or something. The silencer was roughly the length of the weapon, and it also totally obscured the flash.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: palehorse
I didn't realize that I was surrounded by millions of would-be assassins! :laugh: :roll:

Also, as Zen pointed out, real silencers are not even close to being as quiet as they portray them to be in movies...

Then again, WTF does any of this have to do with "automatic" weapons and suppressors?!? It's almost as though some here are bringing them up to intentionally confuse the issue!

Assault rifles != Automatic weapons with suppressors

The original intent of this thread was retarded to begin with.

how so? is the title of the thread inaccurate? I can name 5-10 friends and family members who have said, just in the last week, that they now plan to buy an assault rifle ahead of any potential ban by Obama and the Dem Congress.

IOW, it's probably accurate... so the thread itself was justified.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The original intent of this thread was retarded to begin with.

how so? is the title of the thread inaccurate? I can name 5-10 friends and family members who have said, just in the last week, that they now plan to buy an assault rifle very soon ahead of any potential ban by Obama and the Dem Congress.

IOW, it's probably accurate... so the thread itself was justified.

Anything is possible, but I think they are a bunch of crazies letting fear overwhelm their logic. They are jumping the gun. :laugh:


For the record, I really don't have much of a problem with assault rifles or defending one's home. I just think lines need to be drawn. We differ in opinion of course, but just understand that if I held all of the power then odds are you would not have to worry about much.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The original intent of this thread was retarded to begin with.

how so? is the title of the thread inaccurate? I can name 5-10 friends and family members who have said, just in the last week, that they now plan to buy an assault rifle very soon ahead of any potential ban by Obama and the Dem Congress.

IOW, it's probably accurate... so the thread itself was justified.

Anything is possible, but I think they are a bunch of crazies letting fear overwhelm their logic. They are jumping the gun. :laugh:

I don't see them as "crazy." In fact, it is genuinely possible that there may be a ban on assault rifles during the next few years. So, if you desire to own one, I consider it very logical to buy one now, while you still can. The only thing they're probably "afraid" of is the possible ban itself...

your pun did make me LAWL though...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Anything is possible, but I think they are a bunch of crazies letting fear overwhelm their logic. They are jumping the gun. :laugh:


For the record, I really don't have much of a problem with assault rifles or defending one's home. I just think lines need to be drawn. We differ in opinion of course, but just understand that if I held all of the power then odds are you would not have to worry about much.

what's wrong with their logic? if there is an AWB their purchase goes up in value a lot. if there isn't one they have a gun they probably wanted anyway that is still worth about the same as they purchased it for.

sounds like a better investment than the stock market right now.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Who is to say a person should not be allowed to prepared to defend themselves?

Private ownership of guns is a defense against Tyrany.

I think the underlying thoughts here are that when things degenerate into absolute anarchy and everyone is in the survival mode, I'll simply kill you and take all your shit. :shocked:

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Sigh...if I am wrong, then where should the line be drawn? It needs to be drawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Yes, it's a wikipedia link, but it is straight from United States Code.

Automatic weapons should be allowed to be manufactured again, and everything that is currently legal should stay legal. Crime would go up 0% because of it.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: palehorse

how so? is the title of the thread inaccurate? I can name 5-10 friends and family members who have said, just in the last week, that they now plan to buy an assault rifle ahead of any potential ban by Obama and the Dem Congress.

IOW, it's probably accurate... so the thread itself was justified.

that's funny because my friends and family are looking to purchase firearms for protection because of the state of the economy and upcoming rise in unemployment and as my mother puts it, "N*ggas are going to be hungry."

Seems more prescient than Obama's imaginary gun-ban.

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: piasabird
Who is to say a person should not be allowed to prepared to defend themselves?

Private ownership of guns is a defense against Tyrany.

I think the underlying thoughts here are that when things degenerate into absolute anarchy and everyone is in the survival mode, I'll simply kill you and take all your shit. :shocked:

While I have no plans to kill anyone and take their shit, I'm still wary of those who do.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: palehorse

how so? is the title of the thread inaccurate? I can name 5-10 friends and family members who have said, just in the last week, that they now plan to buy an assault rifle ahead of any potential ban by Obama and the Dem Congress.

IOW, it's probably accurate... so the thread itself was justified.

that's funny because my friends and family are looking to purchase firearms for protection because of the state of the economy and upcoming rise in unemployment and as my mother puts it, "N*ggas are going to be hungry."

Seems more prescient than Obama's imaginary gun-ban.

You must have missed change.gov before they took down the good stuff.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: piasabird
Who is to say a person should not be allowed to prepared to defend themselves?

Private ownership of guns is a defense against Tyrany.

I think the underlying thoughts here are that when things degenerate into absolute anarchy and everyone is in the survival mode, I'll simply kill you and take all your shit. :shocked:

Ayup. That's exactly what nature intended. I can't use a gun, I'll just use a rock.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31


You must have missed change.gov before they took down the good stuff.

imaginary