Quote:
Originally Posted by
reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348548
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348132
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348070
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348023
Quote:
/>
Originally Posted by
Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348017
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/60#post_3348003
I'm not someone that was trained by the CIA to kill people with my pinky finger (and I hate black rifles with scary features), but I play one on the internet. Nice, Rambo. Real nice. Dude, get real. We really don't care what you were secretly "trained" to do. Go play 007 somewhere else.
Tonka trucks are not dangerous toys, and I think they should not be recalled.
I have an act called the tea party. LOL
What the hell are you talking about? I have not made any claims other than I was in the service, your truly an idiot and doing a fine job representing the Tea Party here. I guess my toy soldier comments are striking home though because obviously you are another conservative who never had the balls to actually serve their country but think they can handle a 50. in a combat situation.
My job in the military was my job, if you knew anything at all, you would know that kind of work is not uncommon, nor the CIA or being a secret agent. My job was like being a mailman who would be in some serious trouble if I ever misplaced something in my chain of custody. Have a nice day though Socal, maybe you and your Tea Party buddies can go down and make fun of some vets at the Vets Club this evening for fun.
Fishtaco
lol you basically said I don't have any interest in assault weapons because I don't need them to kill someone due to my special training. I'll go back and quote you if you'd like.
Do yourself a favor stdreb and stay away from the "Big Boy" toys. You'd just shoot yourself in the foot 10 times before taking your finger off the trigger.
As far as 'assault-type weapons' go, the only one I would consider to be useful to a 'normal civilian' would be the AR-15. It's a nice lightweight semi-auto that can be very useful while hunting larger prey. Sure you can throw bigger clips into it, but why? If you can't kill a deer in less than 5 shots, you have no business hunting in the first place. Home protection? Again, needing that many shots will only result in you killing a family member before hitting the intruder. If anyone is a Rambo, it's the wannabes that buy the Uzi's, AK47's, and AR-15's just so they can go hang out with all their other macho buddies at the shooting range and blow $50 in 10 minutes in ammo. To each his own I guess.
We have many items in our homes that aren't useful. So what? I figure it will cost me a couple bucks a pull once I get the 50 upper for the AR. Have no intention of ever hunting with it. Just something to go out in the sticks and have some fun with once in a while. No different than someone buying a Vette or a McMansion.
Like I said, to each his own. As you know, I've done 'the gun thing'. I don't see the correlation of owning a semi-auto weapon and and large home. Buying a big house isn't something I would consider a 'hobby'. Collecting Vette's and buying one just to drive on the weekend's? Sure. But then again, the majority of the items that you have lying around that you consider useless weren't made for the sole purpose of killing something. You can rationalize that a baseball bat or golf club could be used as a deadly weapon, but that isn't what the manufacturer intended for that item to be used as. A gun manufacturer builds guns specifically to be used as a weapon to kill. That's the primary purpose of any firearm, no matter what type it is, plain and simple.
I can use certain household chemicals we all have laying about to make a bomb which could easily kill someone. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have said chemicals? More people are injured by knives per year than guns. Does that mean we should ban knives? How about water? You are something like 9 times more likely to drown than be shot.
Spoken like a true NRA card-toting gun nut.
Household chemicals weren't created to build bombs. Sure they can be used for that purpose, but that wasn't the intent of the manufacturer.
Certain knives, sure. Who needs a Samurai Sword? Could you walk into a crowd with 30 knives and lethally kill or harm that many people in that short of time before being taken down? Seriously doubt it.
Didn't know I could walk up to someone and hit them 30 times with a water balloon and kill them like this 30-round Glock this guy was carrying.
That's your problem reef, you want to make it sound like every single item in the world could be used as a deadly weapon. In reality, you're right. With the right training and practice, I could kill someone with a twig, pencil, needle, ball-point pen, or a piece of paper. But NONE of those items were designed for that purpose. AGAIN, the sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. You can sugarcoat the rationalization and say people buy guns for collecting or just plinking in shooting ranges. But ultimately the main intention for ANY firearm is to use it as a weapon to kill or disable what you are pointing it at.
Spoken like a anti-gun zealot. A car COULD be used for mass murder. Household chemicals COULD be used for mass murder. A gun COULD be used for mass murder.
What are hunting riffles made to do? Yet the guy who went all Rambo on the people from the bell tower down there in the 60's had two hunting riffles with him in addition to a M14. Does that mean we should ban hunting riffles too?
You're missing the point. What I'm trying to convey doesn't seem to register with you.
Anti-gun zealot?
That's rich. I used to have more guns that you'd ever dream of. Some of them that would be banned in today's standards (Thompson machine gun, fully auto AR-15, etc.) I just decided I didn't need them any longer. Had no use for them anymore. The other thread on guns makes more logical sense. Unless you have a practical use for a semi-auto or full-auto weapon that holds more than 15 rounds, there's no point selling them to the general public. Gun zealots like you go into paranoia-mode and think if they restrict ANY type of firearm, then logically they'll eventually ban all forms of firearms. There's not a politician on this planet that could EVER get that type of restrictive legislation through ANY Congress. Not even if it were 100% anti-gun. You'd have to amend the 2nd, and we all know that would NEVER happen.
almettostatearmory.com/1750.php+http://palmettostatearmory.com/1750.php&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
