Page 5 of 18
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:42 pm
by Pudfark
Colt Rifles
http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles.aspxColt Rifles. Colt rifle customers want the genuine article.
They know that the story of today's Colt commercial and sporting rifles began with the Stoner AR-15® ...
So....Slick?
What's the legal definition of an "Assault Rifle"?
Here's a good place for ya to start the hunt.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
Until the term/word "Assault Rifle" has a legal definition by the Fed's you ain't
got a "prayers" chance at doing anything. Might oughta work on that first and
then ya might understand the word "ALL" that I used in another thread.
This all reminds me of the wonderful adventure of ObamaCare.
The way y'all went about it. Ya got some folks to agree, that poor folks
needed it and it's gonna be good fer everybody. Ya said "pass it" and we'll
all read it later.... Later is now, folks are pissed off, laid off and have no insurance or care...and are now looking forward to paying the "hidden fines"
that are gonna be imposed on them.....It's a wonderful life...ain't it. The rest
of us...it's no secret, we're all paying much higher premiums on our insurance.
All, because, of your wonderful well thought out idea.
What's yer next proposal?
A bullet to the head....to cure cancer?
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:45 pm
by Buzz
callmeslick wrote:the argument around any of these proposed new regs is pretty basic, and well-framed by Obama a few weeks ago. If they keep one incident, or even one child's death from occurring, shouldn't we try? I'm tired of the 2nd amendment drivel. The language is clear that we have the right to bear arms. Still, nothing in there prevents the regulation of what type of arms are available. Nothing. Further, the main body of the Constitution empowers the Congress and President to act in the interests of the 'General Welfare' of the nation. This stuff isn't rocket surgery, folks. No one is taking anyone's guns away. No one is saying you can't own a gun(as long as you are reasonably, even minimally, responsible). No one is doing anything other than trying to exercise common sense in the interest of the General Welfare of the nation. Sad to see so many focused on their selfish interests, as that is at the core of what has fucked the society up. You see, it's tough to build or maintain a SOCIETY, when all folks care about is THEMSELVES.
So, for all the predictor hunters that are using rifles you want banned. Nothing is being taken from law abiding citizens?
Do you honestly think taken all the assault guns away from US citizens will stop the killings? Are you really that ignorant?
You're right about the 2nd amendment . It doesn't say anything about the assault rifles. It doesn't mention any type of gun. What guns were available when it was written. Flintlocks? Is that all we should own? Actually, i'd be fine if that were true, but I digress. How can you pick out one type of gun, and say the 2nd amendment doesn't apply for it? Just because some loony used it in a killing? Stupid argument.
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:08 pm
by callmeslick
Buzz wrote:
So, for all the predictor hunters that are using rifles you want banned. Nothing is being taken from law abiding citizens?
oh, puhlease.....if you need a high-velocity weapon with large magazine capacity to hunt, you suck at hunting. No one said you couldn't have a semi auto.
Do you honestly think taken all the assault guns away from US citizens will stop the killings? Are you really that ignorant?
who suggests 'stop the killings', as in ALL killings. Yes, I think it might prevent SOME killings, and that's good enough for me.
You're right about the 2nd amendment . It doesn't say anything about the assault rifles. It doesn't mention any type of gun. What guns were available when it was written. Flintlocks? Is that all we should own? Actually, i'd be fine if that were true, but I digress. How can you pick out one type of gun, and say the 2nd amendment doesn't apply for it? Just because some loony used it in a killing? Stupid argument.
easy, Buzz, the Amendment doesn't address the rights of gun makers, just the rights of the citizen to have a gun. Nothing about 'whatever damn thing they want', and let's be honest, choice wasn't much available in the 18th century.
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:40 pm
by Buzz
High velocity is what coyote hunting is all about. AK's are .223. A fast .22. Shots are taken to 500yds.
30 round mags aren't needed, but 10 round mags are. Do you know how fast those can be changed?
Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag, or a semi auto shotgun loaded with 10 rounds of buckshot?
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:50 pm
by Barfly
callmeslick wrote:This stuff isn't rocket surgery, folks
Yer right! It isn't at the level of 'rocket surgery', lol.
If you think you take a common sense approach to dealing with this issue, you haven't expressed any common sense details. White on white gun crime statistics for the US match that of Canada, which isn't terrible. Gun crime in poor minority neighborhoods is dramatically worse, most occurs in cities, most is gang related. A pragmatist would go after gang related activity, deal with the associated drug trade, eliminate gun-free zones, and severely restrict and monitor people on mind-altering prescription drugs. Those are known issues that will have some positive effect if dealt with.
Restricting people's ability to defend themselves is anti-constitutional, anti-American, and pro-regressive like your effeminate President, his puppeteers, and water carriers. Carry on, water-boy.
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:50 pm
by callmeslick
Buzz wrote:High velocity is what coyote hunting is all about. AK's are .223. A fast .22. Shots are taken to 500yds.
30 round mags aren't needed, but 10 round mags are. Do you know how fast those can be changed?
Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag, or a semi auto shotgun loaded with 10 rounds of buckshot?
give me the shotgun any day........now, let's change the scenario, shall we? Let's say you want to go into a school full of 5 year olds, or a theater full of people and want to kill everyone you can. Which do you choose? Because, Buzz, that's the issue. If coyote hunting gets a bit more difficult, I don't give a rat's ass, if killing large numbers of people gets more difficult.
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:53 pm
by callmeslick
Barfly wrote:Restricting people's ability to defend themselves is anti-constitutional, anti-American, and pro-regressive like your effeminate President, his puppeteers, and water carriers. Carry on, water-boy.
explain, and better still, provide examples of anyone using an assault-type rifle for self-defense. I know of one, exactly one. There is nothing, by the way, in the Constitution that prevents the People from deciding certain weaponry is restricted from public ownership. Nice of you to call an effective, intelligent man 'effeminate'. Compensating for some personal issues, are we?
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:01 pm
by Soapy
This must be the first time I've seen/heard Obama described as such too.
Gaybama?
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:04 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
Buzz wrote:Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag, or a semi auto shotgun loaded with 10 rounds of buckshot?
Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have a bazooka or an RPG?
Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:15 pm
by Buzz
Reservoir_Dog wrote:Buzz wrote:Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag, or a semi auto shotgun loaded with 10 rounds of buckshot?
Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have a bazooka or an RPG?
How did I know you'd miss the point again.
Let me explain. Take away the assault rifles, and the nuts turn to shotguns. Do you think they'll be less killed?
Then you do what? Ban shotguns?
Then what?