assault weapons ban!!

[Member2019]

This will not be tolerated!

Philbert, ninetysixcavy, you two know the rules! :fight:
The only 2 people on FreeOnes allowed to have a flamewar are Fox and I! :thefinger

:rofl: :1orglaugh :rofl:

 

[Torre82]

Re: This will not be tolerated!

Philbert, ninetysixcavy, you two know the rules! :fight:
The only 2 people on FreeOnes allowed to have a flamewar are Fox and I! :thefinger

:rofl: :1orglaugh :rofl:

Roughneck feels great shame at his exemption from this newest flamewar!

 

[Philbert]

Re: This will not be tolerated!

Philbert, ninetysixcavy, you two know the rules! :fight:
The only 2 people on FreeOnes allowed to have a flamewar are Fox and I! :thefinger

:rofl: :1orglaugh :rofl:

I know that, ProfV; I don't flame, I try to pity the poor flaming lost souls and help them find the way back.
Some, alas, are too lost to help, but compassion requires I try.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

First of all, I have been in this thread since the beginning. Second, who are you to question my sanity?
All criminals don't have guns, just the ones you are the most scared of.
You haven't said anything to address my post, just tried to impress someone (don't know who) with your bad manners and lack of attention. Where did anyone, even the most slanted poster, say criminals should have guns?
You must be reading another thread.
Try to read the relevant posts before spewing such garbage, how hard is it for you to understand that?

It's anecdotal evidence on my behalf. I grew up with criminals and I know they all have guns. Also, I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find some sources for the claim. I also have a record so it's pretty unlikely I will never be able to own a ***...but I am still a proponent of those who have no record and are sane to own guns.

 

[bodie54]

In terms of the 2nd amendent---

I think maybe ?? part of what Fox doesn't seem to quite get...what he sees as duplicitous or nonsensical that actually isn't...is that while americans don't anticipate having the need to revolt, that doesn't mean extremities could never arise where we might (they have in the past). So as a hedge against that possibility (as well of course for personal protection on a micro rather than macro scale) many of us arm ourselves, as it is our right to do.

You're a champion of the government fearing (and being mastered by) it's citizens Fox, rather than the contrary. Without the 2nd amendment the government would have far less to fear.

 

[AFA]

assault weapons ******? i sure fucking hope so. they are unnecessary and dangerous to the public in the wrong hands. simple.

I think you might be missing a point that a lot of politicians also miss.

Assault weapons are already ****** and have been for quite some time. The news media and politicians are using the term in a generic context to mean semi automatic rifles that look similiar to assault rifles but operate like autoloading rifles and shotguns.

It would be like stopping you on the highway and arresting you, because you are driving your own car that looks just like a stolen one involved in a robbery.

 

[futuresurfer]

CNN = Commie News Network? Are you for real?

:rofl:

Yes I am CNN Is one of the most liberal and biased media outlets out there and thas saying someting

 

[Philbert]

However...no hunter uses 12-15 rounds to take out one buck, or a hog. They use far less rounds, hopefully, and can at least shoot straight.
An Ak or AR 15 uses serious rounds, high velocity rounds that go through car doors, walls of houses, and people before stopping. Why is it a good idea for someone to have 25-30 rounds flying everywhere 'cause someone 20 ft away is a threat?
Mostly *************** face these weopons, used more for urban warfare than selfdefense.
A shotgun is deadly effective up close, and so is a Sig or a SW wheelgun or auto.
Hunting weopons don't need high-capacity mags, and home defense doesn't need 100 yard accuracy.
I owned my AK for country-home defense, and I had my handguns for up close conflict.
I have problems with rule-makers deciding what I can do or not do, but I still haven't heard a good reason put forth by anyone why city dwellers need 30 round capacity high velocity military style rifles...2 inch cartridges with full metal jacket bullets.
Just in case we need to revolt someday isn't a reason to allow anyone who gets nervous to spray their area with 20 rounds of high velocity bullets.

Those who are capable of putting up a real fight if it ever comes to that insurrection, will have what they need when they need it; most people aren't capable of mounting a serious threat to military or ***************. And I never want to find myself shooting at other Americans, there isn't too much chance of them being all wrong and me being that right.
I don't want to ever find myself disarmed, but more people have scary guns that I don't trust, than those I do.
I am concerned that this is a red herring conflict, like affirmative action has become. There will someday be near total firearms restrictions, and I hope it isn't too soon.
The future is on its way, and population control will be everywhere; videos and remote devices will keep the high density population centers safe but under a watchful eye. Keep your guns safe, and maybe one at home in case you need it.
Cities are where *** and population control will be most needed and implemented; there is no stopping the trend.

 

[futuresurfer]

And with that big ******* gets one step closer

 

[Roughneck]

I still haven't heard a good reason put forth by anyone why city dwellers need 30 round capacity high velocity military style rifles...2 inch cartridges with full metal jacket bullets.

Why is "Because I want it" not good enough for you?

Why do I need to justify the exercise of my Rights to you, your Old Man or anyone else? Do you ask the same question to those who engage in gangbangs, unprotected sex, watch violent horror movies or play simulated video games where the more people you ******, the more your points?

Do you ask them "I haven't heard a good reason why you would...." ?

Those who are capable of putting up a real fight if it ever comes to that insurrection, will have what they need when they need it

... and they will have it how? After they petition you stating "I know, I live in a city and all that... Well, you know those full metal jacket rounds? Yeah, I kinda need them now."

?

Sorry Philbert, but that bit of your argument makes no sense to me. More people are driving faster cars than I trust them to (have you seen the figures for road accidents in this country?) - should we start limiting what kind of cars people drive now?

More people are having **** than I trust them to (read some of my ER stories about irrresponsible parents when you get the time) - do we start licensing reproduction?

I could go on and on - but I'm sure you see my point. The threat of "*****" of liberty is no reason to curtail or restrict said liberty.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. It is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

The Second Amendment isn't about "types of weapons" or "guns for hunting" or "how many fucking rounds in a magazine" - it's about the right to own weapons.

Period.

It is another one of our clauses that limit government scope, growth and power - which sits nicely along with all those other laws of ours that seek to keep government as small as possible.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

The following is an interesting quote by Jefferson - since we are discussing Rights and the Law:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it ******** the rights of the individual.

cheers,

 

[Philbert]

So, it's either Dodge City and Tombstone, or Orwell's vision of thought control?
You know, here in the USA, the West was about 130 or so years ago, where towns and cities began restricting *** carrying through neccessity. We now have millions of people per city, and close to that in the smaller population centers.
I really don't think firearms will be so easy to play with in the future, and if you really think time will stand still so you can have some fun stuff you got now for the next 100 years, keep reading speculative fiction and don't look up.
I **** the thought, but I see no future that contains fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines, a future of highly restricted areas where geezers can ride their antique Harleys and Trans Ams that will be the only place they can actually be operated in most of the world.
Sorry to point out the future is on it's way...I won't do it again.

 

[Roughneck]

Sorry to point out the future is on it's way...I won't do it again.

So because times will change it's ok to bend principles?

How different are you then from those who want to ban porn? Or violent movies and video games?

Of the millions of *** owners in this country... how many of them commit crimes with their legally acquired weapon (This point being reiterated for the umpteenth time this thread) ?


Despite the billions squandered by the government in the War on ******, the War on *****, the War on Poverty etc. - Terrorism, ***** or Poverty has decreased neither by jot nor title.


All we have for 'results' is a steady erosion of our liberty and the increasing acceptance of government intrusion and coercion in our lives.

cheers,

PS: I know the future is on it's way. I was a teenager when they put the man on the moon. In a few years, if my *** screw on his head straight, I could very well be a grandparent. Now be nice to an old codger and stop reminding him he is old, will you?

 

[glk35]

However...no hunter uses 12-15 rounds to take out one buck, or a hog. They use far less rounds, hopefully, and can at least shoot straight.
An Ak or AR 15 uses serious rounds, high velocity rounds that go through car doors, walls of houses, and people before stopping. Why is it a good idea for someone to have 25-30 rounds flying everywhere 'cause someone 20 ft away is a threat?
Mostly *************** face these weopons, used more for urban warfare than selfdefense.
A shotgun is deadly effective up close, and so is a Sig or a SW wheelgun or auto.
Hunting weopons don't need high-capacity mags, and home defense doesn't need 100 yard accuracy.
I owned my AK for country-home defense, and I had my handguns for up close conflict.
I have problems with rule-makers deciding what I can do or not do, but I still haven't heard a good reason put forth by anyone why city dwellers need 30 round capacity high velocity military style rifles...2 inch cartridges with full metal jacket bullets.
Just in case we need to revolt someday isn't a reason to allow anyone who gets nervous to spray their area with 20 rounds of high velocity bullets.

Those who are capable of putting up a real fight if it ever comes to that insurrection, will have what they need when they need it; most people aren't capable of mounting a serious threat to military or ***************. And I never want to find myself shooting at other Americans, there isn't too much chance of them being all wrong and me being that right.
I don't want to ever find myself disarmed, but more people have scary guns that I don't trust, than those I do.
I am concerned that this is a red herring conflict, like affirmative action has become. There will someday be near total firearms restrictions, and I hope it isn't too soon.
The future is on its way, and population control will be everywhere; videos and remote devices will keep the high density population centers safe but under a watchful eye. Keep your guns safe, and maybe one at home in case you need it.
Cities are where *** and population control will be most needed and implemented; there is no stopping the trend.

okay i have to say something i didnt even read the rest of your of your post i had to stop but i have to say that who the hell said this thread is about bullets. first of all you need to understand that a 5.56 .223 round will not got though as buch as a 9mm will due to its extreme high vilocity it will fragment it makes a great home defense round 25 or 30 rounds gives me that many more chances to survive. plus know this your ****** is only to fight your way back to your rifle. on another note you cant even hunt with more than 10 plus 1 rounds in your weapon at least deer hunting. and most bird hunting at least in my state is only 3 shells. I keep 1 10 round mag for my g22 for hunting and this year i plan to use 1 of my new ar's to take a deer or 5. again this isnt a bullets ban its a weapons ban and not just ASSAULT either and i hope that a disarm is nowhere near ever happening because i want my future falmily to be able to ejoy the shooting sports as i have.

 

[Torre82]

And this is why I hold little interest in 'averting the future' from ourselves. The minority who want the law cant sufficiently explain it to the majority. Hah. A country where 'Oh to hell with the details!' is a way of life.

 

[AFA]

However...no hunter uses 12-15 rounds to take out one buck, or a hog. They use far less rounds, hopefully, and can at least shoot straight.
An Ak or AR 15 uses serious rounds, high velocity rounds that go through car doors, walls of houses, and people before stopping. Why is it a good idea for someone to have 25-30 rounds flying everywhere 'cause someone 20 ft away is a threat?
Mostly *************** face these weopons, used more for urban warfare than selfdefense.
A shotgun is deadly effective up close, and so is a Sig or a SW wheelgun or auto.
Hunting weopons don't need high-capacity mags, and home defense doesn't need 100 yard accuracy.
I owned my AK for country-home defense, and I had my handguns for up close conflict.
I have problems with rule-makers deciding what I can do or not do, but I still haven't heard a good reason put forth by anyone why city dwellers need 30 round capacity high velocity military style rifles...2 inch cartridges with full metal jacket bullets.
Just in case we need to revolt someday isn't a reason to allow anyone who gets nervous to spray their area with 20 rounds of high velocity bullets.

Those who are capable of putting up a real fight if it ever comes to that insurrection, will have what they need when they need it; most people aren't capable of mounting a serious threat to military or ***************. And I never want to find myself shooting at other Americans, there isn't too much chance of them being all wrong and me being that right.
I don't want to ever find myself disarmed, but more people have scary guns that I don't trust, than those I do.
I am concerned that this is a red herring conflict, like affirmative action has become. There will someday be near total firearms restrictions, and I hope it isn't too soon.
The future is on its way, and population control will be everywhere; videos and remote devices will keep the high density population centers safe but under a watchful eye. Keep your guns safe, and maybe one at home in case you need it.
Cities are where *** and population control will be most needed and implemented; there is no stopping the trend.

I still think you have someone that might know very little about the subject making decisions for you, on this and also other many other topics. The media and politicians in their search for ratings and votes continues to show those AK wielding bank robbers machine gunning the Police. Those guns are already ****** as well as the parts to manufacture them.

Anyway on gov't making decisions for me, I don't need that in my lifetime, as I can balance my checkbook at the end of the month and local and federal government never seem to.

AK and AR rounds aren't necessarily going to pop through car doors faster then any other type round. (Although I just saw something ridiculous on TV, with Police standing along the side of their car, and using the roof as a rest to aim their handguns). It certainly looks like they could be showing their mid sections though the window). I wish I could say that was from a movie, but I don't think it was. Why would those dummies do a better job making a decision for me than I would? :dunno:

The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to keep an armed citizenry enabled, so in that sense those rifles are more suited to what the founding Fathers had in mind. I think if you forget that then we are all in trouble in this current day and age.

 

[Philbert]

I made my statements as extrapolation, nowhere did I say I wanted this to happen.
However, I was careful to say nothing about firearm control outside the population centers...I doubt seriously that hunters will face any serious changes in your choices.
I see no path for the future of an armed population, that is merely an observation.
And as for police making laws, where did that come from? Legislators make the laws, we vote for legislators, *************** enforces them.
If the majority wants high powered multiround firearms in the hands of whomever wants them, it will be so.
As long as you and I have firearms, they will be around for everyone to have them, that is a fact. And laws are going to be ****** over time to keep arms from proliferating.
I forsee a time where weapons won't be quite as impersonal, rounds will become more like "safety slugs" than hollow points, and the wild and violent will become the object of *************** moreso than now.
Whether I or many others will like this, is not going to be an issue.
Many people don't take the time to think even a bit about what they say, or decide.
I don't trust these same people to aim carefully in a tense situation and make sure not to fire a round, if it isn't sure to not miss and hit someone else.
Like maybe someone I care about out shopping or passing by on the way home from school.
Just as unlikely a situation as being attacked by 3 armed bad guys.
While I may have a strong personal view on a subject, I can see other views and I see the trend is not to live in an armed state.
Like I've said many times, keep your own counsel and prepare for the future, put away what you think you'll need for the future.
But don't expect to own deadly weapons in a future of intense population, it most likely will come to that sooner or later.
Things have changed 180 degrees in the last 150 years, and will continue to do so.
I know a .45 doesn't penetrate a car door, too slow. (I know, I accidently shot my van,and the round hit the door, pancaked, and fell to the floor.HydraShok). Maybee a .223 doesn't, but I do know that a hv bullet doesnt stop in a stud or a brick at close range, it keeps on going.
I **** to say it, but while I want to remain armed, I don't trust most people with guns around me. So I may be wrong, but more people don't want firearms around their families, and eventually they will be super restricted.
I hope roughneck doesn't think I am a hall monitor type, taking names and stopping all the fun, but I am afraid of most non-*** aware people having guns.
And so many are afraid of weapons, they may just be in the majority.
I am not pro *** control, just think it's coming as a future trend.

 

[Roughneck]

I hope roughneck doesn't think I am a hall monitor type, taking names and stopping all the fun

I know you are not - your previous posts on this board indicate as much.

Which is why I was very puzzled with your previous post and said "Sorry Philbert but that bit of your argument makes no sense to me."

I was genuinely surprised and somewhat perplexed.

cheers,

 

[AFA]

This is newsworthy;
Premium Link Upgrade

 

[georges]

This is newsworthy;
Premium Link Upgrade

It indeed is

 

[AFA]

Here, some good proof of why we should follow the lead of our favorite politicians and police. Right? Isn't this Hillary's and Chuck Shumer's vision?


Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade