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

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Howard

I do not have a bottle. I said "To clarify". Obviously you do not own a bottle of it. I wouldnt object to you having it either, unless you put spikes around it and converted it into a club. Are clubs illegal? How often do you see crimes committed with spiked clubs?

First of all, next time please just click on the quote link. You do not need spikes to hit someone on the head with a bottle, but if someone did put spikes on their bottle I would question the need for such a thing. Maybe you don't see a problem with it because its not illegal. Well I dont need something to be illegal to question its use.

A pretty basic example is gun collecting, which you seem to have avoided. You seem to still want bayonet(lug)s outlawed, even though attacking somebody with one would be as stupid as hell (a knife would do the job a hell of a lot better, and it's about as dangerous). 40mm grenades are definitely illegal, so the whole problem of grenade launchers is basically null, according to your logic.

Tell me once where I said the right to own guns should be revoked? I avoided gun collecting because I never said anything to the contrary. My original, unedited quote:

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.

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.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: hysperion
Having sex with corpses isn't a right in the constitution.....maybe the constitution you read but I hardly see how that applies....
Since when does there have to be a Need to own something? Do I NEED a GF with big tits? (my gf is rather petite and doesn't btw) Do I NEED to drive a porsche 911 when a civic would get me to work and back just as well? Most people with bayonet lugs on their guns dont' have bayonets on them.... I have 3 rifles with bayonet lugs...I own 0 bayonets....And I will still fight tooth and nail for the right to have bayonet lugs because it is guaranteed in the constitution of this country. And again.....why does it matter if someone has a grenade launcher....It's illegal to own the grenades! So why make a law banning the launcher as well which has legitimate other uses...Isn't the purpose of a law to prevent and punish criminals? Do you think a criminal who purchases explosive devices that will put him in jail for 20 years will care if he has a grenade launcher that will put him in jail for 5?

So you're saying there should be no law against purchasing explosive devices? Not all people will follow the law, so since a criminal won't care we don't need those laws? Lets get rid of traffic signs because traffic violators don't seem afraid of the penalties? If thats you're reasoning, I strongly disagree. If not, then I do not understand what you're trying to say.

Or didn't you bother reading my post? I didn't say people should be allowed to own grenades....Ever hear of flares? If you're out hunting and have an injury...they can be nice to have......grenade launchers don't just launch grenades....Fancy that huh? You still haven't made one valid point as to why they should be banned othere than

Did I say they should be banned? You are arguing something that I'm not saying. Quote me once where I said something should be banned. The closet thing that might come close is when I said :

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.

And followed up with:

I dont want to sound like a broken record on common sense, but it is legislated all the time. Using cell phones will driving, watching movies while driving, drinking and driving.

which is why we have 50 million laws expressly telling us what we can and can't do. Why? Because people are oblivious to everyone else except their wants and needs.

"Again, I don't question those who admire excessive weapons, but think those that run out and buy bayonets and grenade launchers, get dressed up in the fatigues and run around in the woods at night are nuts." And guess what, luckily people who are nuts aren't allowed to have weapons already "by law" (which we all know work real well)....also luckily people like you don't get to make that distinction or we'd be in a communist nation where the government decides what we need....[/quote]

Heh...now I'm a communist eh? Funny how anyone who disagrees with you guys because a tyrant, communist, or in one unlucky posters case, an asshole. I'm sure you guys will get around to calling me one too. Anyways your sarcastic statement: luckily people who are nuts aren't allowed to have weapons already "by law" (which we all know work real well) implies that people who buy guns can be unstable, which has been my main argument against the need for such things. If you don't plan on using them, why have them, since these are weapons. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is my unstable gun toting neighbor to have a bad day.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Wozster
Childs, are you a professional babysitter? You seem to want our government to be one.

Do you people who agree with the AWB want the government to make laws based on cosmetics?
Analogy:
Case#1 (perfectly legal) ? 2004 Ford Mustang bone-stock = AK-47 without pistol-grip or bayonet lug

Case#2 (illegal) ? 2004 Ford Mustang with fart-pipe muffler and extra body-skirts = AK-47 with pistol grip and bayonet lug

I dont know why you people can't seem to read the posts instead of reading into them. I'll ask this for like the 5th time tonight: Where did I say our government needed to be our babysitters. Thats actually the absolute opposite of what I said. I said there are common sense laws because people dont use it. They take things to excess. Right to bear arms, nothing wrong with that. Gun toting militia nuts buying bayonets and grenade launchers talking about their rights to defend themselves against the oppressive tyranical US government...guess what, then you get things like AWB. If you don't use a headset or pull over when you get a call while driving and you kill someone guess what, you get states, counties, cities banning headset free cell phone use while driving. You get plastered and get behind the wheel and run over some family, you guessed it, theres now a law against it.

Cosmetics? How about a different example. Car stereo noise. Before if didnt matter how loud you had it, but then jackasses but 10 subwoofers in the cars, riding around at full blast through neighborhoods. Guess what, you'll get a citation for that now. There use to be no real laws about how high you could have your 4x4 off the ground until people raised it up by like 10 feet. Most of the laws in this country are to protect people from themselves and others. Most of them aren't even needed if people actually thought about what they are doing have the time.

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: Vic
What issue are we skirting except that you're spouting ignorant propagandist lies? And are an asshole who can only debate this issue it seems throughs lies and slander without a shred of fact or truth?

Namecall and ask questions later. Shoot and ask questions later.

For one thing, I don't support gun ownership or own any guns because I "obsess" over them or because I think it's cool or because I feel like my "peepee is bigger". :roll:

That's a matter of opinion.

I support gun ownership because it is my right and IMO my civic duty to do so. Same reason I will happily serve jury duty the end of this month. Because I believe in living in a free country in a free environment. Because I believe that in a free country that law-abiding citizens should be trusted to be able to arm themselves. Because (as the wars our country has fought and won have taught us) the security of a free nation is based on being able to enlist "citizen soldiers" already capable and able to fight to defend the nation. Or would you have preferred we lost WWII?

That's called enlisting in the army bud. What the hell does it have to do with keeping an uzi under your pillow.

As for your outright lies about countries with a "much lower murder rate" since they criminalized gun possession and ownership, you obviously do not follow Interpol statistics that say exactly the opposite. Finland's murder rate has skyrocketed more than 1000% and now exceeds that of the US. Daylight home invasions and muggings are becoming more common -- because the law-abiding are unarmed and the criminals are fully armed.

All the more reason to ban guns altogether. You CANT tell me that if two people are pointing guns at each other in that circumstance that somebody isn't going to get shot. The situation escallates.

I'm oh so happy that you've never had a threat on your home or person, but some of us haven't been so lucky, and we've discovered the hard way that (if you're even able to dial 911) the cops come in their own sweet time and the damage is usually done by the time they arrive.

Is it really necessary to have a machine gun in your house. Or do you feel the need to riddle your intruder with 100 bullets, instead of the one that will do the job.

As for the 2nd Amendment being outdated moral crap from another era -- fsck you <^>

I'm entitled to my opinion. And as for the guy who let this happen - he isn't getting my vote.

The only thing that keeps our government "civilized" against its people is the knowledge that its people could fight back.

Here comes the paranoia. "They're coming, they're coming - woooo!" (shivers). I for one, don't see a tank rolling down my street in the forseable future to implement martial law.

Millions and millions of people throughout thousands of years of history fought and died to give you the freedom you have today... and your idiotic slave ass doesn't want it.

Yes, it was slaves who made this country rich as well. Not all of our history is pretty.

Well, good for you, but I (and millions of others) do... and we'd appreciate that fools like you weren't so stupid to try to throw it away. Is the right to vote outdated moral crap? How about free speech? Free press? Freedom of and from religion? Right to be secure in your person and property? Fair trial? Who fsckin' needs any of it right?

I never said that. Hey, there have been amendments to the constitution, and for good reason. The world changes. You people always fall back on that as a final arguement - as outdated as it is. Nevermind logic.

I just don't see the reason for machine guns. Somebody please explain it to me.

The thing that bugs me about people like you is that you can't realize that we ARE civilized. Because if we weren't, and Darwin applied without mercy like it does amongst the animals in the wild, you would have died a long time ago...

It should be applied to the legislators who have allowed this to happen. Unfortunately there will plenty of kids available to blow each other's heads off even quicker now that they'll have machine guns.

 

[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.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: Howard

I do not have a bottle. I said "To clarify". Obviously you do not own a bottle of it. I wouldnt object to you having it either, unless you put spikes around it and converted it into a club. Are clubs illegal? How often do you see crimes committed with spiked clubs?

First of all, next time please just click on the quote link. You do not need spikes to hit someone on the head with a bottle, but if someone did put spikes on their bottle I would question the need for such a thing.You're right, there isn't any need for spikes to be on hollow glass bottles. But that isn't the case with small arms attachments. Maybe you don't see a problem with it because its not illegal. Well I dont need something to be illegal to question its use. Bayonets and grenade launchers would be "used", just how? I'm not talking about possession of the aforementioned.

A pretty basic example is gun collecting, which you seem to have avoided. You seem to still want bayonet(lug)s outlawed, even though attacking somebody with one would be as stupid as hell (a knife would do the job a hell of a lot better, and it's about as dangerous). 40mm grenades are definitely illegal, so the whole problem of grenade launchers is basically null, according to your logic.

Tell me once where I said the right to own guns should be revoked? I'm sorry, I don't know where I said that either.I avoided gun collecting because I never said anything to the contrary.So I reiterate: what if the gun collector wants a bayonet on his rifle for WHATEVER reason?My original, unedited quote:

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.

A gun collector doesnt play with guns, an overgrown 8 year old doesThen I'm afraid there are quite a few overgrown 8 year olds on these forums. 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". I'm not sure if outlawed bayonets and grenade launcher would impede the definition of "small arms", but what harm can they do? You keep "questioning their use/need", and anybody who could possibly want one is a "nut". 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.See again how you can kill somebody with a grenade launcher - I'll admit that you can kill with a bayonet, but why?

I did click Quote, I think. But it was easier for me to respond that way.

 

[Howard]

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.

Hey, you're exercising your right to something that millions of Americans died for. Was their loss worth it?

To some, gun ownership could arguably be an extension to free speech.

 

[K1052]

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.

So, are you the resident ACLU bot?

The freedoms that the Bill of Rights provides should all be EQUALLY protected.

 

[BChico]

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

So, are you the resident ACLU bot?

The freedoms that the Bill of Rights provides should all be EQUALLY protected.

Our Second Ammendment rights were formed under the presuppositions that:

"A covenant not to defend myself from force by force is always void,"

more so:

"For man by nature chooseth the lesser evil, which is danger of death in resisting, rather than the greater, which is certain and present death in not resisting." (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (circa 1651)

 

[Spagina]

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...

I would not only extend the ban, but I would go a step further. I would ban all guns entirely. It seems to be working for countries like Great Britian. Ban guns, let cops in big cities have them, much easier to deal with. I don't get why everybody loves guns so much.

-silver

Your thinking is more a threat to my safety than guns will ever be.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Howard

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.

Hey, you're exercising your right to something that millions of Americans died for. Was their loss worth it?

To some, gun ownership could arguably be an extension to free speech.

Meh...on the fence. IMO those are two different things. The right to free speech is more important than the right to bear arms in this day and age. If you need the gun to say whats on your mind then I'd tend to think that they unfortunately died for nothing. A friend of mine at work believes the concept is what people get so excited over, not necessarily exercising the rights. I can see where one would feel it is an extension of free speech, but message is quite disturbing. I guess some would prefer this was still the wild west...but guys got shot for snoring too loud.

And no offense meant by the quote thing. Just took more time reformatting. I also tend to mis your responses because they are somewhat hidden.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

So, are you the resident ACLU bot?

The freedoms that the Bill of Rights provides should all be EQUALLY protected.

And exdeath trivialized the lives of millions who died for this country to justify his need to carry a gun with that response. What does that have to do with ACLU bots?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

So, are you the resident ACLU bot?

The freedoms that the Bill of Rights provides should all be EQUALLY protected.

And exdeath trivialized the lives of millions who died for this country to justify his need to carry a gun with that response. What does that have to do with ACLU bots?

He really isn't wrong. Over the course of the nation's history many have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the United States and the rights that are given to its citizens. The Second Amendment is one of those rights. It was never the framers intention to disarm the citizens or make it legal to do so.

The ACLU rabidly defends every right in the Bill of Rights to the bitter end except for the 2nd, which they just give a "meh".

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Howard

.You're right, there isn't any need for spikes to be on hollow glass bottles. But that isn't the case with small arms attachments.

And whats the need for small arms attachments? You mentioned flares earlier, well they do have flair guns for that, so having a grenade launcher and calling it a flair gun seems like a thin excuse. Other than claiming to adapt it for some other use, they were intended to kill people in violent ways. You already have the gun, and we dont live in fear of the government reigning down on us because we refuse to pay our tea tax.

Bayonets and grenade launchers would be "used", just how? I'm not talking about possession of the aforementioned.

What were they designed to do?

So I reiterate: what if the gun collector wants a bayonet on his rifle for WHATEVER reason?

So these people are now not buying guns to exercise their rights to be A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but are instead gun collectors eh? You have the attachments to use them, or you're playing with dangerous toys. "Gun collecting" is neither, but then not really what the Bill of Rights had in mind now is it? Its up to interpretation, but to me it reads the rights to bear arms is to form a militia to secure the state.

Armed felons are apparently gun collectors too. The term is so loose that it can be applied to anyone.

I'm sorry, I don't know where I said that either

Right here:

You seem to still want bayonet(lug)s outlawed, even though attacking somebody with one would be as stupid as hell (a knife would do the job a hell of a lot better, and it's about as dangerous).

I didn't say anything about outlawing it, just question the need to have it.

Then I'm afraid there are quite a few overgrown 8 year olds on these forums.

I agree.

I'm not sure if outlawed bayonets and grenade launcher would impede the definition of "small arms", but what harm can they do? You keep "questioning their use/need", and anybody who could possibly want one is a "nut".

They can apparently do some harm, as thats what they were designed for. Yes, in my opinion those that want them are nuts. Aside from gouging someone or blowing them up, what would you really need it for? You can read about them, see them in museums, see them in movies, heck, even play games where you can use them. Why do you need to physically attach more weapons to an already dangerous weapon? I

See again how you can kill somebody with a grenade launcher - I'll admit that you can kill with a bayonet, but why?

People kill people. Why is anyones guess, depends on the situation. You can already kill someone with the gun itself, so why stick on the bayonet? In case you need it? Well, you really shouldn't need it. Call the police...shoot them if you have to, but gore them with a bayonet or blow them up? Cmon....

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

So, are you the resident ACLU bot?

The freedoms that the Bill of Rights provides should all be EQUALLY protected.

And exdeath trivialized the lives of millions who died for this country to justify his need to carry a gun with that response. What does that have to do with ACLU bots?

If millions of people die to secure a right, how do you trivialize their loss by making their sacrifice useful?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Childs
Armed felons are apparently gun collectors too. The term is so loose that it can be applied to anyone.

I happen to be a firearms collector and I do not appreciate you lumping my hobby into the same vein as armed felons. If you bothered to spend some time with or talk to actual collectors you would realize just how off base you really are.

Edit:sp

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: K1052
He really isn't wrong. Over the course of the nation's history many have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the United States and the rights that are given to its citizens. The Second Amendment is one of those rights. It was never the framers intention to disarm the citizens or make it legal to do so.

The ACLU rabidly defends every right in the Bill of Rights to the bitter end except for the 2nd, which they just give a "meh".

Originally posted by: Howard

If millions of people die to secure a right, how do you trivialize their loss by making their sacrifice useful?

I never said anything about disarm, but I questioning the need for citizens arm themselves to such an extreme extent. How does that make me an ACLU bot? I believe exdeath trivialized their deaths by flipantly using their deaths as an excuse for him to carry a gun. IMO that taints the spirit of the sacrifice. The Bill of Rights and sucessive ammendments cover many things, not just the right to bear arms.

I could understand if someone admits that they fell insufficient in their safety that they need a gun. Thats not unreasonable. Getting bayonets and the like, to me that seems questionable. Having dangerous weapons it just to have, well, that seems outright foolish.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: K1052
He really isn't wrong. Over the course of the nation's history many have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the United States and the rights that are given to its citizens. The Second Amendment is one of those rights. It was never the framers intention to disarm the citizens or make it legal to do so.

The ACLU rabidly defends every right in the Bill of Rights to the bitter end except for the 2nd, which they just give a "meh".

I never said anything about disarm, but I questioning the need for citizens arm themselves to such an extreme extent. How does that make me an ACLU bot? I believe exdeath trivialized their deaths by flipantly using their deaths as an excuse for him to carry a gun. IMO that taints the spirit of the sacrifice. The Bill of Rights and sucessive ammendments cover many things, not just the right to bear arms.



I could understand if someone admits that they fell insufficient in their safety that they need a gun. Thats not unreasonable. Getting bayonets and the like, to me that seems questionable. Having dangerous weapons it just to have, well, that seems outright foolish.

Could exdeath have been a little more tactful in his response? Yes.

Is he wrong? No, he is not.

We should not have to fight to keep things we are already entitled to possess just because some people think "Oh, you don't really need that."

It is just not a reasonable argument, end of story. You have no right to infringe on my rights.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Childs
Armed felons are apparently gun collectors too. The term is so loose that it can be applied to anyone.

I happen to be a firearms collector and I do not appreciate you lumping my hobby into the same vein as armed felons. If you bothered to spend some time with or talk to actual collectors you would realize just how off base you really are.

Edit:sp

A gun collector is one who collects guns right? If others use gun collectors as the benevolant exercisers of the right to bear arms, than everyone who fits that definition applies.

My family collects guns. One of them is a rifle one of my uncles took off a guy he killed in Vietnam. Another in the collection is the gun my grandfather used in Philipines in WWII. I'm not base at all. Criminals collect guns as well. Mentally unstable collect guns too. When someone says "what if a gun collector wants to buy this or that" that isnt saying much. The people who collect guns are as varied as the different people in this country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CFster
That's called enlisting in the army bud. What the hell does it have to do with keeping an uzi under your pillow.

Well, it helped that those citizen soldiers already knew how to use firearms and were willing to fight for their freedoms. Freedoms that, btw, you would take away.

All the more reason to ban guns altogether. You CANT tell me that if two people are pointing guns at each other in that circumstance that somebody isn't going to get shot. The situation escallates.

Not too bright are ya? If a criminal has reason to believe that his victim might shoot back, the criminal thinks twice. I provided you with the means to confirm how this happens. Crime is rising rapidly in those countries who have outlawed firearm ownership.

Is it really necessary to have a machine gun in your house. Or do you feel the need to riddle your intruder with 100 bullets, instead of the one that will do the job.

I do not own a machine gun for home defense. Did I say that I did?

I'm entitled to my opinion. And as for the guy who let this happen - he isn't getting my vote.

Of course you are. And I'm entitled to ridicule it for the idiocy that it is. As for voting, unfortunately I do not live in the proper areas to vote against Kennedy and Feinstein.

Here comes the paranoia. "They're coming, they're coming - woooo!" (shivers). I for one, don't see a tank rolling down my street in the forseable future to implement martial law.

"Even paranoids have enemies" - Henry Kissenger

Yes, it was slaves who made this country rich as well. Not all of our history is pretty.

You have a point here, or do you just like to strawman? Those slaves were made free because gun-owning citizens from the North fought for their freedom.

I never said that. Hey, there have been amendments to the constitution, and for good reason. The world changes. You people always fall back on that as a final arguement - as outdated as it is. Nevermind logic.

I just don't see the reason for machine guns. Somebody please explain it to me.

Then try to change the 2nd Amendment through the legal means of constitutional amendment. The AWB and other anti-gun laws don't do that, they seek to violate protections provided in the Constitution without lawful amendment, but through simple legislation. If the 2nd Amendment can be legislated away in such fashion, then so can the rest of the Constitution.

It should be applied to the legislators who have allowed this to happen. Unfortunately there will plenty of kids available to blow each other's heads off even quicker now that they'll have machine guns.

Think of your own children and raise them properly and you won't have to worry about them.
As to this last part, that's just idiocy. The lifting of the AWB did not legalize machine guns, and you're either seriously misinformed or simply an idiot if you think so. Automatic weapons are still illegal through different laws.

Anyway... Ughh... nested quotes. Always my cue to ditch a thread and leave the trolls behind.

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.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: Vic
What issue are we skirting except that you're spouting ignorant propagandist lies? And are an asshole who can only debate this issue it seems throughs lies and slander without a shred of fact or truth?

Namecall and ask questions later. Shoot and ask questions later.

For one thing, I don't support gun ownership or own any guns because I "obsess" over them or because I think it's cool or because I feel like my "peepee is bigger". :roll:

That's a matter of opinion.

I support gun ownership because it is my right and IMO my civic duty to do so. Same reason I will happily serve jury duty the end of this month. Because I believe in living in a free country in a free environment. Because I believe that in a free country that law-abiding citizens should be trusted to be able to arm themselves. Because (as the wars our country has fought and won have taught us) the security of a free nation is based on being able to enlist "citizen soldiers" already capable and able to fight to defend the nation. Or would you have preferred we lost WWII?

That's called enlisting in the army bud. What the hell does it have to do with keeping an uzi under your pillow.

As for your outright lies about countries with a "much lower murder rate" since they criminalized gun possession and ownership, you obviously do not follow Interpol statistics that say exactly the opposite. Finland's murder rate has skyrocketed more than 1000% and now exceeds that of the US. Daylight home invasions and muggings are becoming more common -- because the law-abiding are unarmed and the criminals are fully armed.

All the more reason to ban guns altogether. You CANT tell me that if two people are pointing guns at each other in that circumstance that somebody isn't going to get shot. The situation escallates.

I'm oh so happy that you've never had a threat on your home or person, but some of us haven't been so lucky, and we've discovered the hard way that (if you're even able to dial 911) the cops come in their own sweet time and the damage is usually done by the time they arrive.

Is it really necessary to have a machine gun in your house. Or do you feel the need to riddle your intruder with 100 bullets, instead of the one that will do the job.

As for the 2nd Amendment being outdated moral crap from another era -- fsck you <^>

I'm entitled to my opinion. And as for the guy who let this happen - he isn't getting my vote.

The only thing that keeps our government "civilized" against its people is the knowledge that its people could fight back.

Here comes the paranoia. "They're coming, they're coming - woooo!" (shivers). I for one, don't see a tank rolling down my street in the forseable future to implement martial law.

Millions and millions of people throughout thousands of years of history fought and died to give you the freedom you have today... and your idiotic slave ass doesn't want it.

Yes, it was slaves who made this country rich as well. Not all of our history is pretty.

Well, good for you, but I (and millions of others) do... and we'd appreciate that fools like you weren't so stupid to try to throw it away. Is the right to vote outdated moral crap? How about free speech? Free press? Freedom of and from religion? Right to be secure in your person and property? Fair trial? Who fsckin' needs any of it right?

I never said that. Hey, there have been amendments to the constitution, and for good reason. The world changes. You people always fall back on that as a final arguement - as outdated as it is. Nevermind logic.

I just don't see the reason for machine guns. Somebody please explain it to me.

The thing that bugs me about people like you is that you can't realize that we ARE civilized. Because if we weren't, and Darwin applied without mercy like it does amongst the animals in the wild, you would have died a long time ago...

It should be applied to the legislators who have allowed this to happen. Unfortunately there will plenty of kids available to blow each other's heads off even quicker now that they'll have machine guns.

You just lost any right to talk. Machine guns are already banned and illegal since 1934 unless you have a machine gun permit signed off my your local police chief in which case you need to pay a $200 fee and can only purchase weapons made before a law in 1984 banning manufacture of them. Machine guns have nothing to do with the law that just expired which is the entire topic of this discussion. Until you understand what the law did you have no right to support it or to fight against it. I don't feel I need to talk to you anymore because you are PWNED and don't even know what your talking about. This law is about semi-automatic weapons badged as 'bad' because they had collapsable stocks, threaded barrels, and bayonet lugs...that is all. Thanks for playing CFster buh bye- go learn the law then come back and continue to look like a child (get it?)....

And childs- you've failed to score any points with any of your posts reguarding the plan. According to all your posts unless there is a need for something- it should be illegal. Guess what- unless their's a NEED for a law, their shouldn't be one. You've asked what people need bayonet lugs for but have failed to show where a single bayonet was used in the commission of a crime. Not only that, even if you could find the use of a bayonet being used in a crime- I can guarantee that the crime would have been able to be committed without it. If I'm getting robbed I'd be just as worried whether the criminal had a bayonet or not.

You've used lots of pointless arguments going back to BMW's having a use because they are safe and luxurious but does that mean they need a big gas guzzing engine? That's using your logic. I've watched you dodge and weave every question asked of you and you haven't made a logical point to anything other then there isn't a NEED for a bayonet lug. I think we've already established that in a FREE country, you shouldn't have to have a NEED and justify that to others in order to have something. I have lots of stuff I don't NEED and some of it has no use as I'm sure I could find in your own home.

Anyways your sarcastic statement: luckily people who are nuts aren't allowed to have weapons already "by law" (which we all know work real well) implies that people who buy guns can be unstable, which has been my main argument against the need for such things.

Well then your main argument is wrong because it's illegal for someone legally insane to purchase/own/possess a firearm. Shows how well those laws you want to force on everyone are working.

CFster
All the more reason to ban guns altogether. You CANT tell me that if two people are pointing guns at each other in that circumstance that somebody isn't going to get shot. The situation escallates.

And now you know what gun owners have been saying for the last 10 years! Congratulations you have just showed your true intentions. You just put it out bluntly. All you care about is an outright ban on firearms.

-What I can tell you is that if two people are pointing guns at each other and are both criminals- they are already breaking the law and accepting of that lifestyle. If one of them gets shot- I don't feel sorry for them. Are you telling me that if one person is pointing the gun and the other isn't the situation hasn't already escallated? If a police officer was there- assuming the person with the gun is the criminal because the law abiding person wouldn't be allowed to own a gun as they'd be banned, (if you were king anyways) and law abiding people follow laws. The criminal would be shot. Sadly, probably not before the criminal has killed/maimed his target. At least if they both have weapons and one of them is a law-abiding sensible citizen, he has a fighting chance which the criminal doesn't deserve anyways.
The point of legislation against guns isn't to make reasonable restrictions, it is to move towards the outright ban on firearms and taking away of our second amendment rights. You just hinted that you would be all for it even though criminals would never give in their weapons and would still have access to them. There is no way to take away every criminals weapons. There is no way to stop weapons from getting into this country illegally. We can't even stop illegal immigrants and drugs- how could we stop weapons which are easier to get in being that they can't be smelled? With your logic only criminals will get the guns and law-abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves. This is exactly what happened in the UK when guns were banned. But again that's an issue you both dodged and didn't bother to disprove. :brokenheart:

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Childs
Armed felons are apparently gun collectors too. The term is so loose that it can be applied to anyone.

I happen to be a firearms collector and I do not appreciate you lumping my hobby into the same vein as armed felons. If you bothered to spend some time with or talk to actual collectors you would realize just how off base you really are.

Edit:sp

A gun collector is one who collects guns right? If others use gun collectors as the benevolant exercisers of the right to bear arms, than everyone who fits that definition applies.

My family collects guns. One of them is a rifle one of my uncles took off a guy he killed in Vietnam. Another in the collection is the gun my grandfather used in Philipines in WWII. I'm not base at all. Criminals collect guns as well. Mentally unstable collect guns too. When someone says "what if a gun collector wants to buy this or that" that isnt saying much. The people who collect guns are as varied as the different people in this country.

There are collectors, accumulators, owners, and criminals.

Collectors aquire firearms in something resembling an organized pattern (by manufacturer, by date, country of use, type, etc..).

Accumulators usually buy what strikes them at a given time. Nothing bad about this, their interest is just not primarily restricted.

Owners are you basic law abiding citizen that has 1+ gun(s) for whatever reason (hunting, target shooting, protection, etc..).

Criminals have slightly different uses for guns than the above groups.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: K1052

Could exdeath have been a little more tactful in his response? Yes.

Is he wrong? No, he is not.

You admint he could have used more tact, but question the use of the word trivialize?

trivialize:
to make trivial

trivial:
1 : COMMONPLACE, ORDINARY
2 a : of little worth or importance b : relating to or being the mathematically simplest case; specifically : characterized by having all variables equal to zero <a trivial solution to a linear equation>

Or do you object to when I said:

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.

What exactly are your objecting to?

We should not have to fight to keep things we are already entitled to possess just because some people think "Oh, you don't really need that."

It is just not a reasonable argument, end of story. You have no right to infringe on my rights.

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.



BTW, I have a dentist appointment to go to, but I'll be back to address these new big comments

 

[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.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Childs

Originally posted by: K1052

Could exdeath have been a little more tactful in his response? Yes.

Is he wrong? No, he is not.

You admint he could have used more tact, but question the use of the word trivialize?
Yes. I might have said: "Because many people have given their lives so that I might enjoy the rights that are guaranteed by our nation." His statement, though slightly crude IMO, has the same meaning

trivialize:
to make trivial

trivial:
1 : COMMONPLACE, ORDINARY
2 a : of little worth or importance b : relating to or being the mathematically simplest case; specifically : characterized by having all variables equal to zero <a trivial solution to a linear equation>

Or do you object to when I said:

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.

What exactly are your objecting to?

Your statement implies that some of the rights are worth less than others and that is not the case IMO

We should not have to fight to keep things we are already entitled to possess just because some people think "Oh, you don't really need that."

It is just not a reasonable argument, end of story. You have no right to infringe on my rights.

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

I said that to signal an end to my desire to debate the "need" line of questioning

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.