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

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I just think that despite the fact that criminals can already get their hands on these kind of weapons, lifting the ban will just make it that much easier for them to get it. And to me it seems like a shotgun is pretty adequate home defense, the tec9 seems a little overkill. And as far as entertainment value goes, seems like a big risk to take for just some cheap thrills.

There are a lot more hoops for you to hop through if you want a "Tec9" legally as opposed to going through the black market. Any "criminal" using a legally registered weapon is just asking for trouble.

But if they're availabe for sale, the supply of them will increase, and the likelihood of them ending up in the wrong hands from either shadey dealers or thefts and what not will increase will it not? Just by the sheer supply alone.

I agree. Even if your guns are locked up and safely stored, there will be many others who do not exercise proper precautions of owning a gun. The result? Well one of them will be that the gun could get stolen by someone and used for criminal purposes. Yea the police is really going to like that! Having a gun can also increase the persuasive likelihood of one using it for uses other than legal hunting and target practicing. For example some hick stole his girlfriend away and wanted to get back at him by threatening him with the gun..maybe accidentally shooting him and someone else. I'm sure this has happened much too often. I'm not saying that banning guns will make a place a safer enviroment, I just don't see HOW THE FvCK it can MAKE a place a safer as some of you seem to suggest overall. I'm from NYC and would feel totally messed up walking around here knowing people are legally owning machine guns.

 

[Howard]

Come on! Machine guns (automatic firearms) are regulated by the BATF!

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: hysperion

LOL you're hilarious...you completely ignored the second part of your quote...and then try to go around the issue. You specifically said "there is no other use" referring to the "so called" assault rifles....I pointed out 4 and you ask me if I read what you quoted? That's laughable but contines on your pattern of talking out the backside... If you were referring to bayonets there are NUMEROUS uses for bayonet. First off it is usually the only issued knife you have if you're in the military.

Are we talking about the uses of bayonets for military personel? Don't think so.

It among other things, is used for cutting wire (gasp)- it has a piece on the carrying case just to help with this task and generally any other use you can think of for a knife.

A leatherman can do that. So can $2.99 wire cutters. And, as you mentioned, you can get knives fairly easily. I question why you need, or WANT one on the end of your gun.

If you're not in the military- it can be used as a knife because OMG- it is one!

Wow, and you can use a knife as a knife too. You can use an ice cream scoop as an ice cream scoop, but I question its usefulness if strapped to the end of an assault rifle.

So if you think the only use of a knife is to kill people then you need help. And if you don't need help we better start banning all knives because some people might use them illegally.

Are there not different types of knives to different functions? Whats the primary function of a bayonet? To sit at the end of a rifle so you can stab someone with it. If I see a butter or filet knife on the end of a gun, I'll question that too.

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Darilus

Originally posted by: CFster

I accept the sad truth that there will always be guns. I also concede the point that some people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. I don't however see the need for your average shmoe to own a machine gun or grenade launcher. If he feels the need to wage war maybe he should join the army, or go take over a third world nation.

The AWB doesn't affect machine guns or grenades. I think that's been stated many, many times. Why don't you stick to the issues at hand?

Because he's ignorant and has no clue what the AWB is. Can't really blame him, the media has portrayed it this way. I challenge you to go to www.awbansunset.com and come back with a logical argument CFster...

Not only that he's already stated he thinks all guns should be banned. So even if there isn't a reason for a specific gun law, as long as it's anti-gun, he'll defend it using illogical uninformed arguments.

You bet your ass I will. Any law banning any kind of gun is ok with me.

However, like I said before, I understand peoples feelings of inadequacy, and their need to own a gun. So be it - I can't change the world.

But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

 

[hysperion]

I'm not gonna respond to anything child's says anymore. He's already made too many ignorant posts for one day. He's shown that he dodges every question he can't answer and picks and chooses points from our posts that are completely out of context and then tries to beat us up over them. Lets turn this thread back into what it should be. A forum for expressing our joy at rights being returned to us. If child's doesn't want them- well benjamin franklin once said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I couldn't agree more.

 

[Darilus]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
. I'm from NYC and would feel totally messed up walking around here knowing people are legally owning machine guns.

Please see my post above, or Howards post below you. AWB does not regulate machine guns. This is a thread about the AWB dying.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Childs

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?

Apparently hysperion has uses for them. Killing varmits and looking purty in their cases. I'll stop saying it when:

1) When it sinks in that I never once said I'm trying to ban them
2) When you actually show me a use...hysperion excluded as I'm not sure he speaks for the majority, and I find his use idiotic enough to not change my point of view on them.

Why does anyone have to give you a use!? I've given you 2 and while they were satiracle....they make more sense then what you've written in this thread.

Because you are the ones arguing with me about MY statement saying I see no need for one. You say I'm wrong, fine, give me some plausible reason to think otherwise.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Darilus

Originally posted by: CFster

I accept the sad truth that there will always be guns. I also concede the point that some people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. I don't however see the need for your average shmoe to own a machine gun or grenade launcher. If he feels the need to wage war maybe he should join the army, or go take over a third world nation.

The AWB doesn't affect machine guns or grenades. I think that's been stated many, many times. Why don't you stick to the issues at hand?

Because he's ignorant and has no clue what the AWB is. Can't really blame him, the media has portrayed it this way. I challenge you to go to www.awbansunset.com and come back with a logical argument CFster...

Not only that he's already stated he thinks all guns should be banned. So even if there isn't a reason for a specific gun law, as long as it's anti-gun, he'll defend it using illogical uninformed arguments.

You bet your ass I will. Any law banning any kind of gun is ok with me.

However, like I said before, I understand peoples feelings of inadequacy, and their need to own a gun. So be it - I can't change the world.

But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

There are countries for people like you, I think one is called Great Britain.

 

[Darilus]

Originally posted by: CFster


But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

No, that's the whole point: it didn't. It banned guns that LOOKED more deadly than others.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: mwtgg
I read them just fine. Thanks for thinking of my comprehension skills though

If you don't need something, you're saying we shouldn't have them?

I'm saying I don't understand the need for them. I'm saying more than likely you don't need them. Do I think you should have them? Well, no. Does that mean I'm going to be the Grinch and take your toys away? Not likely. I'm not a Senator or some lawmaker. The want, or need for a weapons is what I'm questioning. If you disagree with my statement, tell me why you think you need or want a bayonet or grenade launcher, tell me why. If you don't want to, well, its your right, but then if the goal was to challenge my point of view, that does nothing to change it.

Well, I've said this before, but I don't own any type of firearm. But if I wanted to, couldn't I just duct tape a knife onto a rifle? I really wasn't aware someone needed a reason.

See, it's kinda like me saying, "Ok, I don't see why you should have the right to free speech, but I'll let you have it if you give me a good reason as to why you need it."

Thats not like it at all. Its like saying you dont see why I have the right to free speech, but you have it anyways. Then some wierdos come around and say "what, you want to ban free speech, OMFGWTFBBQ!?!?!?!?!"

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: hysperion

LOL you're hilarious...you completely ignored the second part of your quote...and then try to go around the issue. You specifically said "there is no other use" referring to the "so called" assault rifles....I pointed out 4 and you ask me if I read what you quoted? That's laughable but contines on your pattern of talking out the backside... If you were referring to bayonets there are NUMEROUS uses for bayonet. First off it is usually the only issued knife you have if you're in the military.

Are we talking about the uses of bayonets for military personel? Don't think so.

It among other things, is used for cutting wire (gasp)- it has a piece on the carrying case just to help with this task and generally any other use you can think of for a knife.

A leatherman can do that. So can $2.99 wire cutters. And, as you mentioned, you can get knives fairly easily. I question why you need, or WANT one on the end of your gun.

If you're not in the military- it can be used as a knife because OMG- it is one!

Wow, and you can use a knife as a knife too. You can use an ice cream scoop as an ice cream scoop, but I question its usefulness if strapped to the end of an assault rifle.

So if you think the only use of a knife is to kill people then you need help. And if you don't need help we better start banning all knives because some people might use them illegally.

Are there not different types of knives to different functions? Whats the primary function of a bayonet? To sit at the end of a rifle so you can stab someone with it. If I see a butter or filet knife on the end of a gun, I'll question that too.

Absolutely wrong....For every bayonet that has been used to kill someone in battle. 100 more have been used for normal things a Knife is used for. You're not even in the military so don't talk about how the military uses bayonets...Again talking out the back...

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: mwtgg
I read them just fine. Thanks for thinking of my comprehension skills though

If you don't need something, you're saying we shouldn't have them?

I'm saying I don't understand the need for them. I'm saying more than likely you don't need them. Do I think you should have them? Well, no. Does that mean I'm going to be the Grinch and take your toys away? Not likely. I'm not a Senator or some lawmaker. The want, or need for a weapons is what I'm questioning. If you disagree with my statement, tell me why you think you need or want a bayonet or grenade launcher, tell me why. If you don't want to, well, its your right, but then if the goal was to challenge my point of view, that does nothing to change it.

Well, I've said this before, but I don't own any type of firearm. But if I wanted to, couldn't I just duct tape a knife onto a rifle? I really wasn't aware someone needed a reason.

See, it's kinda like me saying, "Ok, I don't see why you should have the right to free speech, but I'll let you have it if you give me a good reason as to why you need it."

Thats not like it at all. Its like saying you dont see why I have the right to free speech, but you have it anyways. Then some wierdos come around and say "what, you want to ban free speech, OMFGWTFBBQ!?!?!?!?!"

Kinda makes sense... If you don't see the point in something, why is it so?

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I just think that despite the fact that criminals can already get their hands on these kind of weapons, lifting the ban will just make it that much easier for them to get it. And to me it seems like a shotgun is pretty adequate home defense, the tec9 seems a little overkill. And as far as entertainment value goes, seems like a big risk to take for just some cheap thrills.

There are a lot more hoops for you to hop through if you want a "Tec9" legally as opposed to going through the black market. Any "criminal" using a legally registered weapon is just asking for trouble.

But if they're availabe for sale, the supply of them will increase, and the likelihood of them ending up in the wrong hands from either shadey dealers or thefts and what not will increase will it not? Just by the sheer supply alone.

I agree. Even if your guns are locked up and safely stored, there will be many others who do not exercise proper precautions of owning a gun. The result? Well one of them will be that the gun could get stolen by someone and used for criminal purposes. Yea the police is really going to like that! Having a gun can also increase the persuasive likelihood of one using it for uses other than legal hunting and target practicing. For example some hick stole his girlfriend away and wanted to get back at him by threatening him with the gun..maybe accidentally shooting him and someone else. I'm sure this has happened much too often. I'm not saying that banning guns will make a place a safer enviroment, I just don't see HOW THE FvCK it can MAKE a place a safer as some of you seem to suggest overall. I'm from NYC and would feel totally messed up walking around here knowing people are legally owning machine guns.

Well since this ban was cosmetic based and you could have legally bought a gun that was 100% as lethal even during it- I fail to see how allowing a bayonet lug and collapsable buttstock changes that. And secondly, another uninformed sheep spouting his mouth off without bothering to read the thread or research the law. The AWB has NOTHING to do with machine guns. They are still illegal unless you are liscensed as they have been since 1934. Quit using fallacies to move your point forward.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Howard

Fine, I'll cave in and say that we (I?) don't need them. We also don't need a hell of a lot of things. So what do you plan to do? Was all this wordplay solely for the purpose of getting us to agree with you?

I plan on doing nothing...what am I supposed to do? What was I going to do? We were talking about AWB on an internet forum for Christ's sake. Then I got called a petty tyrant, communist, for what, saying I dont see a need for these things?

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Childs

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?

Apparently hysperion has uses for them. Killing varmits and looking purty in their cases. I'll stop saying it when:

1) When it sinks in that I never once said I'm trying to ban them
2) When you actually show me a use...hysperion excluded as I'm not sure he speaks for the majority, and I find his use idiotic enough to not change my point of view on them.

Why does anyone have to give you a use!? I've given you 2 and while they were satiracle....they make more sense then what you've written in this thread.

Because you are the ones arguing with me about MY statement saying I see no need for one. You say I'm wrong, fine, give me some plausible reason to think otherwise.

If that's all your saying is that you see no reason for them and aren't trying to ban them. Then I have absolutely no beef with you. You are 100% entitled to that opinion. Truthfully there isn't much reason for them. But there's also no reason against law-abiding citizens owning them as they are no more dangerous then a regular knife. I have rifles because I'm in the military and it helps for me to use at home what I use there because I'm going to iraq shortly. Not by choice trust me.

In reguards to the primary purpose of a bayonet being to kill people you are wrong. 200 years ago that was the case but now days it's basically used as a service knife. Very rare for an infantry company to 'fix bayonets' now days. They aren't 2 feet long like 'back in the day'. In my 4 years in the military I have been given one day of training on bayonets and have had them attached to the end of my service rifle 0 times since that day.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: hysperion
I'm not gonna respond to anything child's says anymore. He's already made too many ignorant posts for one day. He's shown that he dodges every question he can't answer and picks and chooses points from our posts that are completely out of context and then tries to beat us up over them. Lets turn this thread back into what it should be. A forum for expressing our joy at rights being returned to us. If child's doesn't want them- well benjamin franklin once said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I couldn't agree more.

:brokenheart:

Originally posted by: hysperion
If that's all your saying is that you see no reason for them and aren't trying to ban them. Then I have absolutely no beef with you. You are 100% entitled to that opinion. Truthfully there isn't much reason for them. But there's also no reason against law-abiding citizens owning them as they are no more dangerous then a regular knife. I have rifles because I'm in the military and it helps for me to use at home what I use there because I'm going to iraq shortly. Not by choice trust me.

But good luck none the less. My father and 3 uncles went to Vietnam. They still have a hard time coming to grips with what they had to do. Most wont even watch movies with realistic war scenes. One does, but he's the kind of person who was built for such periods.

In reguards to the primary purpose of a bayonet being to kill people you are wrong. 200 years ago that was the case but now days it's basically used as a service knife. Very rare for an infantry company to 'fix bayonets' now days. They aren't 2 feet long like 'back in the day'. In my 4 years in the military I have been given one day of training on bayonets and have had them attached to the end of my service rifle 0 times since that day.

That may very well be the case. I guess I have no desire to own one...my leatherman suits me well. And attaching it do my pellet gun would seem silly.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Darilus

Originally posted by: CFster

I accept the sad truth that there will always be guns. I also concede the point that some people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. I don't however see the need for your average shmoe to own a machine gun or grenade launcher. If he feels the need to wage war maybe he should join the army, or go take over a third world nation.

The AWB doesn't affect machine guns or grenades. I think that's been stated many, many times. Why don't you stick to the issues at hand?

Because he's ignorant and has no clue what the AWB is. Can't really blame him, the media has portrayed it this way. I challenge you to go to www.awbansunset.com and come back with a logical argument CFster...

Not only that he's already stated he thinks all guns should be banned. So even if there isn't a reason for a specific gun law, as long as it's anti-gun, he'll defend it using illogical uninformed arguments.

You bet your ass I will. Any law banning any kind of gun is ok with me.

However, like I said before, I understand peoples feelings of inadequacy, and their need to own a gun. So be it - I can't change the world.

But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

There are countries for people like you, I think one is called Great Britain.

As far as he's concerned they're the same thing. LOL he doesn't even know the definition without looking it up after I type this. Not only that he doesn't know the law and is just an uninformed turd....Really pathetic. I like how he said they are MORE deadly when if he understood the law he would know that is 100% false as non-banned weapons were just as capable. Hence why the law expired.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Darilus

Originally posted by: CFster

I accept the sad truth that there will always be guns. I also concede the point that some people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. I don't however see the need for your average shmoe to own a machine gun or grenade launcher. If he feels the need to wage war maybe he should join the army, or go take over a third world nation.

The AWB doesn't affect machine guns or grenades. I think that's been stated many, many times. Why don't you stick to the issues at hand?

Because he's ignorant and has no clue what the AWB is. Can't really blame him, the media has portrayed it this way. I challenge you to go to www.awbansunset.com and come back with a logical argument CFster...

Not only that he's already stated he thinks all guns should be banned. So even if there isn't a reason for a specific gun law, as long as it's anti-gun, he'll defend it using illogical uninformed arguments.

You bet your ass I will. Any law banning any kind of gun is ok with me.

However, like I said before, I understand peoples feelings of inadequacy, and their need to own a gun. So be it - I can't change the world.

But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

Senator Feinstein, how nice to know you post on ATOT....

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Howard

Fine, I'll cave in and say that we (I?) don't need them. We also don't need a hell of a lot of things. So what do you plan to do? Was all this wordplay solely for the purpose of getting us to agree with you?

I plan on doing nothing...what am I supposed to do? What was I going to do? We were talking about AWB on an internet forum for Christ's sake. Then I got called a petty tyrant, communist, for what, saying I dont see a need for these things?

I believe people said you had communist like ideas- which is a fact from what you've posted. Nobody called you a communist....and on the other hand who cares...in a perfect world communism is a better form of government then democracy. Too bad it's not a perfect world and communist countries aren't really true communists. To be a communist- everyone is treated equal. Not possible as shown thru history.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Darilus

Originally posted by: CFster

I accept the sad truth that there will always be guns. I also concede the point that some people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. I don't however see the need for your average shmoe to own a machine gun or grenade launcher. If he feels the need to wage war maybe he should join the army, or go take over a third world nation.

The AWB doesn't affect machine guns or grenades. I think that's been stated many, many times. Why don't you stick to the issues at hand?

Because he's ignorant and has no clue what the AWB is. Can't really blame him, the media has portrayed it this way. I challenge you to go to www.awbansunset.com and come back with a logical argument CFster...

Not only that he's already stated he thinks all guns should be banned. So even if there isn't a reason for a specific gun law, as long as it's anti-gun, he'll defend it using illogical uninformed arguments.

You bet your ass I will. Any law banning any kind of gun is ok with me.

However, like I said before, I understand peoples feelings of inadequacy, and their need to own a gun. So be it - I can't change the world.

But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

Senator Feinstein, how nice to know you post on ATOT....

LOL

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Howard

Fine, I'll cave in and say that we (I?) don't need them. We also don't need a hell of a lot of things. So what do you plan to do? Was all this wordplay solely for the purpose of getting us to agree with you?

I plan on doing nothing...what am I supposed to do? What was I going to do? We were talking about AWB on an internet forum for Christ's sake. Then I got called a petty tyrant, communist, for what, saying I dont see a need for these things?

I believe people said you had communist like ideas- which is a fact from what you've posted. Nobody called you a communist....and on the other hand who cares...in a perfect world communism is a better form of government then democracy. Too bad it's not a perfect world and communist countries aren't really true communists. To be a communist- everyone is treated equal. Not possible as shown thru history.

Pure Communism will never, never, and I repeat NEVER be possible.

 

[Darilus]

Originally posted by: K1052


Senator Feinstein, how nice to know you post on ATOT....

I'm still hoping she gets attacked with a spork.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: hysperion

I believe people said you had communist like ideas- which is a fact from what you've posted. Nobody called you a communist....and on the other hand who cares...in a perfect world communism is a better form of government then democracy. Too bad it's not a perfect world and communist countries aren't really true communists. To be a communist- everyone is treated equal. Not possible as shown thru history.

Well, I do question the ability of everyday people to do the right thing, which is why I believe we have so many petty laws. Too many in fact. Not sure how that makes me a communist, but at 4:30PM on a Friday I really dont give a sheit.

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Darilus

Originally posted by: CFster

I accept the sad truth that there will always be guns. I also concede the point that some people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. I don't however see the need for your average shmoe to own a machine gun or grenade launcher. If he feels the need to wage war maybe he should join the army, or go take over a third world nation.

The AWB doesn't affect machine guns or grenades. I think that's been stated many, many times. Why don't you stick to the issues at hand?

Because he's ignorant and has no clue what the AWB is. Can't really blame him, the media has portrayed it this way. I challenge you to go to www.awbansunset.com and come back with a logical argument CFster...

Not only that he's already stated he thinks all guns should be banned. So even if there isn't a reason for a specific gun law, as long as it's anti-gun, he'll defend it using illogical uninformed arguments.

You bet your ass I will. Any law banning any kind of gun is ok with me.

However, like I said before, I understand peoples feelings of inadequacy, and their need to own a gun. So be it - I can't change the world.

But I have yet to hear an arguement for machine guns, or "assault weapons" or whatever - they're really the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to argue the semantics of each, or what specifically the AWB does or doesn't ban because I really don't care. All I know is it in some fashion banned guns that were MORE deadly than others.

There are countries for people like you, I think one is called Great Britain.

As far as he's concerned they're the same thing. LOL he doesn't even know the definition without looking it up after I type this. Not only that he doesn't know the law and is just an uninformed turd....Really pathetic. I like how he said they are MORE deadly when if he understood the law he would know that is 100% false as non-banned weapons were just as capable. Hence why the law expired.

Oh sorry, my bad. Now that you cleared this up for me, I'll rest assured that assault weapons are readily available- not just the ones that are really deadly, but the ones that look real nasty too. Because well, when you're talking guns that IS a fine point.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: hysperion

I believe people said you had communist like ideas- which is a fact from what you've posted. Nobody called you a communist....and on the other hand who cares...in a perfect world communism is a better form of government then democracy. Too bad it's not a perfect world and communist countries aren't really true communists. To be a communist- everyone is treated equal. Not possible as shown thru history.

Well, I do question the ability of everyday people to do the right thing, which is why I believe we have so many petty laws. Too many in fact. Not sure how that makes me a communist, but at 4:30PM on a Friday I really dont give a sheit.

Too many laws? Was this sarcasm then?

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.