fishyfun2
Member
Thought this story was funny.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/0...nt-in-chicago/
Ok, I'm really going now.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/0...nt-in-chicago/
Ok, I'm really going now.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
- Thread starter veni vidi vici
- Start date
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971209
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Try again.
What do you mean it doesn't wash!? A large percentage of the population does target shooting, it's even an Olympic sport. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it should be banned.
http:///forum/post/2971209
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Try again.
What do you mean it doesn't wash!? A large percentage of the population does target shooting, it's even an Olympic sport. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it should be banned.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971228
I don't want some Uzi-carrying criminal treading on my rights when they walk into the convenience store I'm buying a 6-pack of my favorite brew wanting to blow my head off for $20 in a cash register.
How often has this happened to you???? OMG you need to move to a safer place and I mean today!!!!
http:///forum/post/2971228
I don't want some Uzi-carrying criminal treading on my rights when they walk into the convenience store I'm buying a 6-pack of my favorite brew wanting to blow my head off for $20 in a cash register.
How often has this happened to you???? OMG you need to move to a safer place and I mean today!!!!
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971218
Uzi, TEC-9's, the small, compact semi-autos. Having them as 'collector's items' is a lame excuse to own one. I don't see the logic of owning a gun that shoots 50 rounds in 3 seconds, even for 'target practice'. What's a round for one of those guns cost, 50 cents, a buck? It's fun to shoot $50 in 3 seconds out of an Uzi?
I have no problems with the M-1 or AR-15. As I stated before, I owned a Colt for years. Best deer rifle I ever owned.
I should be allowed to own a M-60or a 50 cal. machine gun........The 2nd amendment was meant for me to be able to defend myself against tyrannical government,foreign or my own .It wasnt meant to give me the right to go trap shooting on the weekends ,or duck hunting with my buddies.
If you dont like guns then dont own one.If you dont like the 2nd Amendment then leave.But dont try and infringe on my right to bear arms ,i wont stand for that.
http:///forum/post/2971218
Uzi, TEC-9's, the small, compact semi-autos. Having them as 'collector's items' is a lame excuse to own one. I don't see the logic of owning a gun that shoots 50 rounds in 3 seconds, even for 'target practice'. What's a round for one of those guns cost, 50 cents, a buck? It's fun to shoot $50 in 3 seconds out of an Uzi?
I have no problems with the M-1 or AR-15. As I stated before, I owned a Colt for years. Best deer rifle I ever owned.
I should be allowed to own a M-60or a 50 cal. machine gun........The 2nd amendment was meant for me to be able to defend myself against tyrannical government,foreign or my own .It wasnt meant to give me the right to go trap shooting on the weekends ,or duck hunting with my buddies.
If you dont like guns then dont own one.If you dont like the 2nd Amendment then leave.But dont try and infringe on my right to bear arms ,i wont stand for that.
scsinet
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971218
Having them as 'collector's items' is a lame excuse to own one. I don't see the logic of owning a gun that shoots 50 rounds in 3 seconds, even for 'target practice'. What's a round for one of those guns cost, 50 cents, a buck? It's fun to shoot $50 in 3 seconds out of an Uzi?
What you are saying here is that a ban is okay just because you feel that this is a "lame excuse" or you "don't see the logic" in that?
So how would you feel if others started putting bans in place of things you did just because they thing your reason for doing things is "lame" or that they "don't see the logic" in it?
I don't watch football. I don't watch or follow Nascar. I don't see the point in these sports.
So should we ban those? Of course not! It's just as much your right to enjoy those things, for whatever reasons you have, as it is my right to ignore them.
As long as what I am doing does not deny you your life to life, liberty, or property, you should have nothing to say. I'll grant you the same courtesy.
Laws and regulations should be passed due to facts, not people's opinions.
http:///forum/post/2971218
Having them as 'collector's items' is a lame excuse to own one. I don't see the logic of owning a gun that shoots 50 rounds in 3 seconds, even for 'target practice'. What's a round for one of those guns cost, 50 cents, a buck? It's fun to shoot $50 in 3 seconds out of an Uzi?
What you are saying here is that a ban is okay just because you feel that this is a "lame excuse" or you "don't see the logic" in that?
So how would you feel if others started putting bans in place of things you did just because they thing your reason for doing things is "lame" or that they "don't see the logic" in it?
I don't watch football. I don't watch or follow Nascar. I don't see the point in these sports.
So should we ban those? Of course not! It's just as much your right to enjoy those things, for whatever reasons you have, as it is my right to ignore them.
As long as what I am doing does not deny you your life to life, liberty, or property, you should have nothing to say. I'll grant you the same courtesy.
Laws and regulations should be passed due to facts, not people's opinions.
scsinet
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971228
But you're denying a specific group their rights just the same. I don't want some Uzi-carrying criminal treading on my rights when they walk into the convenience store I'm buying a 6-pack of my favorite brew wanting to blow my head off for $20 in a cash register.
This doesn't "wash."
Your suggestion implies that everyone/anyone that owns a gun is just owning it - either for the current or eventual purpose of - harming you.
Let me try something new here...
I am going to pose a question to everyone on this thread. Here it goes:
Why do we have no death beam violence?
Seriously... stay with me. Why do we have no death beam violence? It's simple. Because nobody has a death beam. The reason for this is that death beams do not exist, but that's irrelevant here. Okay, so nobody has a death beam. So instead of death beams we use guns.
Okay, not try to imagine that somehow, some way, we managed to completely obliterate guns from existence. Now nobody has a gun. Is the violence going to stop? No, people will use knives. Okay so we get rid of those somehow... now what... they'll use clubs.
When are we going to understand that guns are an end, not a means. If a person wants to be violent, he is going to be violent, without a gun, something else. Upon close examination of history, you'll find that - surprise - people were violent and killed each other before guns were even invented. I know... you coulda knocked me over with a sock full of bubble gum.
Obviously we can't get rid of guns. Maybe someday, we'll have death beams and everyone will start worrying about them and forget all about guns.
But ultimately, when you think about it, getting rid of guns won't stop the violence. What will stop the violence is when you can respond to violence. You can't respond to gun violence with a knife, you can't respond to knife violence with a club. You respond to gun violence with a gun. Hate to say it, but that's the reality.
In that regard, consider that maybe, much violence is deterred by the fact that criminals who may commit an act of violence against you know you may be able to respond. What if they KNEW you couldn't? What if they knew that the best you could do is a knife? That's what turned me from a gun control advocate into a "gun nut." It's when I sat back, thought about it objectively, and what truly woke me up was the idea of what would happen if criminals knew that I couldn't respond.
It seems to me that many of the gun control advocates here already admit that they can't get rid of the guns from the criminals - at least not completely.
But they should also be able to see that gun bans will completely remove guns from legal ownership, and hence their owner's ability to legally respond.
So let's very generously estimate that gun control removes 75% of the illegal guns. What happens when 25% of the criminals know that 100% of the citizenship is not armed?
turningtim
Active Member
A small bit of reading on the subject.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/beararms.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/beararms.htm
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970889
VERY CLEARLY SHOWS? The 2nd Amendment has been one of the most contested and widely argued Amendments of the Constitution. Politicians and activists have argued for decades over the interpretations of this Amendment. Depending on how you apply the punctuation and grammer to the statement, you get two or three totally different meanings of what the Founding Fathers were trying to convey.
I know you don't hold any credance to Wiki references, but just look at and READ the history of how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted based on grammer content and punctuation. You'll see that gun ownership isn't as clear as you make it out to be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
For anyone who reads the writings of those who helped create the bill of rights the meaning of the second amendment is crystal clear. Only when people who oppose the right to keep and bare arms try to twist the intent of the amendment do things become cloudy.
http:///forum/post/2970889
VERY CLEARLY SHOWS? The 2nd Amendment has been one of the most contested and widely argued Amendments of the Constitution. Politicians and activists have argued for decades over the interpretations of this Amendment. Depending on how you apply the punctuation and grammer to the statement, you get two or three totally different meanings of what the Founding Fathers were trying to convey.
I know you don't hold any credance to Wiki references, but just look at and READ the history of how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted based on grammer content and punctuation. You'll see that gun ownership isn't as clear as you make it out to be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
For anyone who reads the writings of those who helped create the bill of rights the meaning of the second amendment is crystal clear. Only when people who oppose the right to keep and bare arms try to twist the intent of the amendment do things become cloudy.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2971244
How often has this happened to you???? OMG you need to move to a safer place and I mean today!!!!
No kidding. There are enough armed citizens where I live that that stuff doesn't happen here very often and I live in the Denver metro area.
http:///forum/post/2971244
How often has this happened to you???? OMG you need to move to a safer place and I mean today!!!!
No kidding. There are enough armed citizens where I live that that stuff doesn't happen here very often and I live in the Denver metro area.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
TheRight
Adjective
1. morally or legally acceptable or correct: his conduct seemed reasonable, even right
2. correct or true: the customer is always right
3. appropriate, suitable, or proper: there were problems involved in finding the right candidate
4. most favourable or convenient: she waited until the right moment to broach the subject
5. in a satisfactory condition: things are right again now
6. accurate: is that clock right?
7. correct in opinion or judgment
8. sound in mind or body
9. of or on the side of something or someone that faces east when the front is turned towards the north
10. conservative or reactionary: it was alleged he was an agent of the right wing
11. Geom formed by or containing a line or plane perpendicular to another line or plane: a right angle
12. of or on the side of cloth worn or facing outwards
13. in one's right mind sane
14. she'll be right Austral & NZ informal that's all right; not to worry
15. the right side of
bear 1 (bâr)
v. bore (bôr, br), borne (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
Of
The
People
TO
BEAR
v.tr.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" Abraham Cowley.
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push
ARMS
- weapons considered collectively
implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system
ammo, ammunition - projectiles to be fired from a gun
armament - weaponry used by military or naval force
bomb - an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions
defence system, defense system - the weaponry available for the defense of a region
gunnery - guns collectively
hardware - major items of military weaponry (as tanks or missile)
instrumentation, instrumentality - an artifact (or system of artifacts) that is instrumental in accomplishing some end
naval weaponry - weaponry for warships
weapon, weapon system, arm - any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"
Adjective
1. morally or legally acceptable or correct: his conduct seemed reasonable, even right
2. correct or true: the customer is always right
3. appropriate, suitable, or proper: there were problems involved in finding the right candidate
4. most favourable or convenient: she waited until the right moment to broach the subject
5. in a satisfactory condition: things are right again now
6. accurate: is that clock right?
7. correct in opinion or judgment
8. sound in mind or body
9. of or on the side of something or someone that faces east when the front is turned towards the north
10. conservative or reactionary: it was alleged he was an agent of the right wing
11. Geom formed by or containing a line or plane perpendicular to another line or plane: a right angle
12. of or on the side of cloth worn or facing outwards
13. in one's right mind sane
14. she'll be right Austral & NZ informal that's all right; not to worry
15. the right side of
bear 1 (bâr)
v. bore (bôr, br), borne (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
Of
The
People
TO
BEAR
v.tr.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" Abraham Cowley.
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push
ARMS
- weapons considered collectively
implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system
ammo, ammunition - projectiles to be fired from a gun
armament - weaponry used by military or naval force
bomb - an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions
defence system, defense system - the weaponry available for the defense of a region
gunnery - guns collectively
hardware - major items of military weaponry (as tanks or missile)
instrumentation, instrumentality - an artifact (or system of artifacts) that is instrumental in accomplishing some end
naval weaponry - weaponry for warships
weapon, weapon system, arm - any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Shall1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2. Archaic
a. To be able to.
b. To have to; must.
Not
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition:
Be
Infringed
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2. Archaic
a. To be able to.
b. To have to; must.
Not
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition:
Be
Infringed
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2971329
Shall
1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2. Archaic
a. To be able to.
b. To have to; must.
Not
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition:
Be
Infringed
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
Stop hitting liberals with facts.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by JTT
http:///forum/post/2970642
ok, i gotta know something, is this ban going to actually stop me from being able to purchase like a small hand gun for protection in my home and stuff? because THAT is what i am against. sure i could see them putting a ban on assault rifles that should only be used in combat, but i mean, i still am planning on buying a small hand gun just to have in case i need it.
Sorry I didn't respond sooner...I actually had to work today.
Depending on which handgun you choose, yes. Yes it can.
The folowing image depicts an assault weapon as defined by the state of California. I was forced to leave my .22LR pistol in storage in Missouri when I moved to Ca. This act of denying ownership of certain types of guns will lead to more bans (historically true) on top of more bans. Eventually you will lose the right to own a firearm entirely.
socal57che
Active Member
"However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime.4 The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”5 This right, which reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny,6 was not recognized in the German Reich.
This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices
to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews.
Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.7"
I may not be Jewish, but I have spoken to at least one holocaust survivor. You cannot tell me that if your children were being taken by force that you would not use a firearm if available. Wouldn't anyone? The people had to be disarmed to reduce the risk of organized rebellion.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/article-nazilaw.html
Leaving Germany out of the picture, can you defend the other countries that have done the same thing?
Ottoman Turkey...
Soviet Union...
Nationalist China...
Red China...
Guatemala...
Uganda...
Cambodia...
Rwanda...
This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices
to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews.
Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.7"
I may not be Jewish, but I have spoken to at least one holocaust survivor. You cannot tell me that if your children were being taken by force that you would not use a firearm if available. Wouldn't anyone? The people had to be disarmed to reduce the risk of organized rebellion.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/article-nazilaw.html
Leaving Germany out of the picture, can you defend the other countries that have done the same thing?
Ottoman Turkey...
Soviet Union...
Nationalist China...
Red China...
Guatemala...
Uganda...
Cambodia...
Rwanda...
socal57che
Active Member
Thomas Jefferson on
The Right to Bear Arms
[hr]
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.
[hr]
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
-- Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
[hr]
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
[hr]
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
[hr]
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
[hr]
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson
[hr]
Tommy knew what the 2nd amendment meant.
He also knew a thing or two about government...
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-- Thomas Jefferson
The Right to Bear Arms
[hr]
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.
[hr]
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
-- Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
[hr]
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
[hr]
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
[hr]
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
[hr]
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson
[hr]
Tommy knew what the 2nd amendment meant.
He also knew a thing or two about government...
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-- Thomas Jefferson
rslinger
Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2971233
Registered buyers of uzi's arent using them for crimes. Your example is very flawed.
Everyone in a restaurant is exposed to the smoke. You are only exposed to the uzi if it is used by a criminal. Chances are it isnt.
kinda funny you use smoking. Here in Madison Wi and soon to be all of Wisconsin you can not smoke in restauants or bars. In no pubilc buildings. It doesnt matter if you own a flower shop and smoke in your office it is against the law to smoke in any bussieness.
http:///forum/post/2971233
Registered buyers of uzi's arent using them for crimes. Your example is very flawed.
Everyone in a restaurant is exposed to the smoke. You are only exposed to the uzi if it is used by a criminal. Chances are it isnt.
kinda funny you use smoking. Here in Madison Wi and soon to be all of Wisconsin you can not smoke in restauants or bars. In no pubilc buildings. It doesnt matter if you own a flower shop and smoke in your office it is against the law to smoke in any bussieness.
fishhunter
Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2970968
You sound like quite the edumacated type! Firearms are not weapons.
Think about it! If you put a "Assult weapon"
on a table, cocked loaded and ready to go. And not tuch that firearm again. It will NEVER go off. It will not go out on the street and start shooting things randomly... It is the person who uses it that is the weapon. That is why I'm for safety; train the person who owns the firearm. Make the firearms corse a 2 week program or longer. Make sure people know about them and there dangers. But just saying hey lets ban someting today for shits and giggles.... I have a problem with that... All firearms have a use for other then what they have been labled for.... Hell who wouldnt want to go with a full auto MG-42 on a goffer hunt. Let the blood fly hahaha.
http:///forum/post/2970968
You sound like quite the edumacated type! Firearms are not weapons.
Think about it! If you put a "Assult weapon"
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971096
Just like you have the right to own that gun, I have the same Constitutional right to not get threatened or shot by it. If you're so worried about Constitutional rights, where's the thread screaming about how virtually every company, store, restaurant and bar across America is banning smoking? I personally have no problem with the ban, and actually prefer they get rid of cigarettes altogether. But the fact is, the Government is treading on all these smoker's rights.
By you way of thinking I have a constitutional right not to have to pay to raise another man's family so we should ban all welfare.
http:///forum/post/2971096
Just like you have the right to own that gun, I have the same Constitutional right to not get threatened or shot by it. If you're so worried about Constitutional rights, where's the thread screaming about how virtually every company, store, restaurant and bar across America is banning smoking? I personally have no problem with the ban, and actually prefer they get rid of cigarettes altogether. But the fact is, the Government is treading on all these smoker's rights.
By you way of thinking I have a constitutional right not to have to pay to raise another man's family so we should ban all welfare.
fishhunter
Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2971719
By you way of thinking I have a constitutional right not to have to pay to raise another man's family so we should ban all welfare.
Eh men to that!
http:///forum/post/2971719
By you way of thinking I have a constitutional right not to have to pay to raise another man's family so we should ban all welfare.
Eh men to that!