What's that noise? Oh yeah, that's the AWB's death rattle - AWB is HISTORY!

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Childs

But you have the right to infringe on my rights to free speech? If thats the end of your story, then cya.

And again, show me where I said we should ban anything? You are fighting for something just to do it, and its your right, but it makes no sense within the context of the discussion. Perhaps you're thinking of other posters in this thread. Well, I suggest you quote them.

I believe you said it.... here:

Originally posted by: Childs

You gun nuts should buy some Enzyte instead.

I really dont see why anyone would want a grenade launcher and bayonet on their gun. If you really want to play with guns join the army and serve in Iraq. Otherwise, it seems kinda pathetic.

And right here:

Originally posted by: Childs

A gun collector doesnt play with guns, an overgrown 8 year old does. I question the need for those attachments on a gun. Many who purchase weapons to exercise their right to bear arms fire their weapons, whether its on a shooting range or when "hunting". What need would having those attachments serve to the collector or sportsman? Nothing anyone has said addresses that statement, just "its our right to". It maybe their newfound right, but that doesnt mean I can't question the need for such useless things. If its not useless then there is a problem, because these are weapons designed to kill people. There is no other use.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

In this country the forces that want to ban firearms are patient. They will do it in stages as it is much easier that way than to go after a total ban. See California for a good example of this tactic.

Resisting any further infringement is the only way to protect the right.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

LOL you're still talking about NEEDS. What if I want a bayonet lug on my weapon? I prefer to have one. Do I have to have a NEED? There is only 3 needs, food/shelter/clothing they teach that in like third grade. Maybe you haven't got to that point in school yet?

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

In this country the forces that want to ban firearms are patient. They will do it in stages as it is much easier that way than to go after a total ban. See California for a good example of this tactic.

Resisting any further infringement is the only way to protect the right.

Exactly right.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Childs

I never said my views on extremists are confined to gun ownership. Common sense has to be legislated because people don't use it. This isn't 1776. Times have changed.

Times have changed, you're right. So that means, if the Second Amendment can go byebye, then heck, who needs the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eigth, etc? I'm not much of a "slippery-slope" guy, but Jesus if you don't like one thing, some other crybaby won't like another, and it keeps going on and on and on.

Besides, I wasn't aware the United States Constitution was a Living Document open for different interpretations. Can someone fill me in on this one, I must have been absent that day for US History class. :roll:

And :roll: to the ignorance displayed in this thread.

Quote where I said we should change the Bill of Rights? I said no such thing. The bulk of the commense sense posts essentially state that unless moderation is used, we will need laws for everything.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Childs

I never said my views on extremists are confined to gun ownership. Common sense has to be legislated because people don't use it. This isn't 1776. Times have changed.

Times have changed, you're right. So that means, if the Second Amendment can go byebye, then heck, who needs the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eigth, etc? I'm not much of a "slippery-slope" guy, but Jesus if you don't like one thing, some other crybaby won't like another, and it keeps going on and on and on.

Besides, I wasn't aware the United States Constitution was a Living Document open for different interpretations. Can someone fill me in on this one, I must have been absent that day for US History class. :roll:

And :roll: to the ignorance displayed in this thread.

Quote where I said we should change the Bill of Rights? I said no such thing. The bulk of the commense sense posts essentially state that unless moderation is used, we will need laws for everything.

It's just the degradation of the Bill of Rights. Like K1052 said, it will be done in stages until we're left with nothing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Childs
Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

Of course. A bayonet is just a knife. Shall we outlaw those too?

Grenades are not legally arms, but explosive ordinance, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and there are already many laws restricting them.

The reality is that firearm ownership and possession for law-abiding citizens requires no explanation of home defense or protections of civil liberities. It is a right and a civic duty. A government that would not trust its law-abiding citizenry to arm and defend themselves could only be a tyrannical government. If you sought to take firearms from convicted violent felons, I would agree with you, though I find the notion that criminals could possibly be expected to abide by any law you might pass to be naive in the extreme.


edit: typo

 

[hysperion]

childs:
' because these are weapons designed to kill people. There is no other use. '


Sure there is: Can you not kill varmint with a rifle? Can you not go to a shooting range and enjoy yourself? Can you not collect them for their value? Can you not enjoy putting them together and accessorizing? I thought you said there was no other use.....no other use you approve of? O! that's what you meant!

I'm sorry you're right...none of those are NEEDS so they should all be illegal. And while we're at it- I don't NEED you to breathe so I think it should be illegal. In my opinion you are worthless and not needed so why don't we make a law against you? Sound ridiculous? That's how you sound to someone informed on the topic which obviously you are not.

And they are designed to kill people, making them the ideal weapon for home defense. IMO everyone should own one. Thanks for pointing that out. Why would I want a less capable weapon to protect my well-being? There is always "a time to kill'.....

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

LOL you're still talking about NEEDS. What if I want a bayonet lug on my weapon? I prefer to have one. Do I have to have a NEED? There is only 3 needs, food/shelter/clothing they teach that in like third grade. Maybe you haven't got to that point in school yet?

And you are still talking about WANTS without any reasoning behind it. You apparently want these attachments for your rifle, but for what purpose? Maybe you should take a reading comp class. My participation in this discussion started off with me not understanding why anyone would want, or need these things. Maybe you belong in the third grade, since third graders seem to only be able to demand things without articulating why.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Childs
Quote where I said we should change the Bill of Rights? I said no such thing. The bulk of the commense sense posts essentially state that unless moderation is used, we will need laws for everything.

If you would seek to infringe on one single right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights by unconstitutional legislation, and not by lawful amendment, then I can no reason why you would not seek to infringe upon them all. The Law is the Law.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Childs
Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

Of course. A bayonet is just a knife. Shall we outlaw those too?

Grenades are not legally arms, but explosive ordinance, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and there are already many laws restricting them.

The reality is that firearm ownership and possession for law-abiding citizens requires no explanation of home defense or protections of civil liberities. It is a right and a civic duty. A government that would not trust its law-abiding citizenry to arm and defend themselves could only be a tyrannical government. If you sought to take firearms from convicted violent felons, I would agree with you, though I find the notion that criminals could possibly be expected abide by any law you might pass to be naive in the extreme.

I coulda sworn I heard that before... OHH I HAVE!

Originally posted by: Vic

WINNER! :beer:

The well-regulated militia btw is the common men, allowed to keep arms and to train themselves in the use of arms (not the national guard or any other professional or semi-professional military). In other words, the regular citizens, those same brave men who helped the Founding Fathers win the Revolutionary War, aka citizen soldiers, the same ones that were also considered indispensible in America winning WWII.

In general, "arms" are defined as those weapons that the common military infantry would carry on their persons; rifles, pistols, swords, etc. Grenades are considered to be explosives, which are ordinance. Cannons were not considered to be arms in Revolutionary War times, but artillery, and today that would include mortars, rpgs, nukes, tomahawk cruise missiles, etc.

Repeating yourself isn't a good habit you know, but logic is lost on most, there ought to be a law mandating everyone take logic classes!

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Childs
Quote where I said we should change the Bill of Rights? I said no such thing. The bulk of the commense sense posts essentially state that unless moderation is used, we will need laws for everything.

If you would seek to infringe on one single right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights by unconstitutional legislation, and not by lawful amendment, then I can no reason why you would not seek to infringe upon them all. The Law is the Law.

I think this thread is over. Nice post(s) Vic.

 

[Vic]

Heh. I recall that post from another thread a few months back. :beer:

Unfortunately, I find myself forced to repeat myself on AT (OT and P&N) frequently. Some people just don't get it, and then there's always a fresh crop of uneducated n00bs that just got out of public school brainwashing with an image of the world that simply does not meet reality.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. I recall that post from another thread a few months back. :beer:

Unfortunately, I find myself forced to repeat myself on AT (OT and P&N) frequently. Some people just don't get it, and then there's always a fresh crop of uneducated n00bs that just got out of public school brainwashing with an image of the world that simply does not meet reality.

Ahh not just public schools, I had teachers spout off random BS of which they knew nothing about. Oh well, such is life.

VIC FOR ELITE!!! oh wait.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

LOL you're still talking about NEEDS. What if I want a bayonet lug on my weapon? I prefer to have one. Do I have to have a NEED? There is only 3 needs, food/shelter/clothing they teach that in like third grade. Maybe you haven't got to that point in school yet?

And you are still talking about WANTS without any reasoning behind it. You apparently want these attachments for your rifle, but for what purpose? Maybe you should take a reading comp class. My participation in this discussion started off with me not understanding why anyone would want, or need these things. Maybe you belong in the third grade, since third graders seem to only be able to demand things without articulating why.

This has already been said 18 times you very informed individual!.....Why should I repeat what others have stated as legit reasons again for you? EVERYONE listen up- from now on when we want something we have to explain ourselves as to why and be able to make a good case for it or we can't have it. Childs told me so....

And WANTS? or HAVES? I already own 2 bayonets that are located in my gun safe. I want them cus they look real pretty in the case. Is that good enough for you?

Thanks for skipping past my post where you were completely owned with your 'no other uses' crap. I guess you couldn't find a comeback for that once I pointed out 4.

 

[Lumathix]

Originally posted by: elanarchist

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: desteffy

Originally posted by: agnitrate

Originally posted by: elanarchist
Hmm, kinda odd that "a National Annenberg election survey shows two thirds of the public favors extending the ban" (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...eapons.ban/index.html) yet only eakers are Mo0o have spoken out in this thread...

-silver

Is ATOT full of rednecks or something? why do you guys love guns so much? You dont need these kinds of guns for hunting.

Yay for cop killing :disgust:

ATOT is not full of rednecks, but there does seem to be an influx of retards lately. Did the door to P&N get left open and you decided to wander in here?

Doesn't this thread itself belong in P&N? What do you think P&N stands for? That's right, POLITICS AND NEWS, which gun control is definetly a part of! Every time a Fahrenheit 9/11 thread or something like that appears in OT there's an outcry from you guys about putting it in P&N but when a pro-conservative thread like this appears in OT no one dares question the hypocrisy of it all. :disgust:

If you believe this, then based on your sig, you should never post anywhere except P&N. So seeya. :disgust:

 

[hysperion]

that's awesome first post and he already pwned someone... welcome to the boards....i'm sure other's ignorance flamed your insides to come join us on the topic....

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: exdeath
Sometimes I have people ask me why I carry, and one of my favorite responses is:

Because millions of people died so I could.

Millions of people died so you can carry a gun? Was there loss worth it? IMO thats one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard. People died over the years in this country for other things besides gun ownership. Why not think about embracing some of those other things besides your gun.

Childs, a few points I need to address.

One: I emphasized my right to carry because that is what we are talking about here. I value ALL my freedoms equally and would fight to the death to preserve all of them. I might also point out that should it ever come to that, the right to bear arms will be what allows me the slightest chance to preserve the others if necessary.

Two: I never called you a communist directly and I meant no insult in any way. Seriously, the form of government in which government officials decide what citizens 'need' based on their own judgments and control everything is called communism. It's a real form of government; it's not a dirty word. And it's one were your wants and needs are irrelevant unless the government 'feels' that people need something.

The bottom line here is as long as we don't interfere with anyone else, we can do whatever we want.

That is what freedom is all about.

We don't need anybody telling us what we NEED because they don't want it or need it themselves.

 

[hysperion]

Why bother arguing with childs? everything you said has already been mentioned 10x and childs chose to ignore it...Truth is childs's ideas do stink of communism. I call a spade a spade...

But I understand your just trying to reason with the sheep- it can be frustrating some times can't it?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

Jesus! Do we have to find a fuzzy bunny-loving use for a bayonet before you'll stop saying that we don't need them?

 

[Howard]

.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: hysperion
Why bother arguing with him? everything you said has already been mentioned 10x and he chose to ignore it...Truth is his ideas do stink of communism. I call a spade a spade...

But I understand your just trying to reason with the sheep- it can be frustrating some times can't it?

It shouldn't matter if we want to own the equipment that is banned by the AWB (what the hell can we do with collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, grenade launchers, threaded muzzles), but for some reason, it does to Childs.

P.S. The BATF must approve the change of ownership/possession (i.e. sale) of Title 2 weapons, including silencers.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Vic

One last question for Childs and CFster:
Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)?
Don't bring up the potential for crime, we're talking about law-abiding citizens.
Don't bring up the police, if a victim is even able to dial 911, they'll likely be dead by the time the cops show up.
Bring up something real. Why should a person who will likely never commit a single crime by owning a firearm not be allowed to own that firearm to defend themselves from those who will? Why should the government and those factions of the people who choose not to own arms fear these law-abiding citizens?

C'mon... let's hear it.

Question for you: Can you actually read my posts? Is there any conceivable reason why a law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and possess arms in order to defend himself against criminals (or even his government if it chooses to be unlawful)? This is not what I've been talking about over the last few pages. Bayonets and grenade launchers are. So you're going to purchase a bayonet, to attach to your rifle, so you can gore the intruder? That seems reasonable to you? You already have the rifle or handgun, what do you need the attachments for? Assuming that you're talking about home defense, which is what you question seems to be about.

Jesus! Do we have to find a fuzzy bunny-loving use for a bayonet before you'll stop saying that we don't need them?

Bunny-loving, or bunny-hunting?

 

[hysperion]

howard thanks for joining in on the conversation....my point was directed at childs and i'd appreciate it if you would edit your post instead of making it look the other way...thanks...I have the same opinion on the matter as yourself....I will edit my post above to make it more clear...