Here's a stupid question answered by responsible hunters. Also, please take note of post #14. Is this the proof you were looking for, or do you need a notarized sworn statement?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=675580
For Your Eyes Slick
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
gawd, you folks are relentlessly stupid. The matter isn't whether an AR-15 is suitable for hunting. Hell, hunting is not even the point of the 2nd amendment, it is WHETHER AN AR-15 type is NECESSARY for SELFDEFENSE. Get it? Likely not, if you haven't caught on by this point.
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
I am thinking "stupid and not getting it" falls onto you. The banning of any firearm is the issue! I could care less if you and your type think it is "NECESSARY"!! Once we let you get your foot in the door when will it stop? That is the issue!!!
Now we have demonstrable evidence that if you try to lead from behind, eventually the guys up front will stop looking back for instructions.
Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country
Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country
-
Pudfark
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
Ah...I suppose your life experience, Slick, "dictates" it ain't necessary?
The good news Slick?
It's not required of you to have one, especially since you can't handle a silly millimeter....or a tough crowd.
The good news Slick?
It's not required of you to have one, especially since you can't handle a silly millimeter....or a tough crowd.
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
so, you have a problem with the current restrictions on machine guns, grenade launchers and bazookas? No different.Darkhorse wrote:I am thinking "stupid and not getting it" falls onto you. The banning of any firearm is the issue! I could care less if you and your type think it is "NECESSARY"!! Once we let you get your foot in the door when will it stop? That is the issue!!!
-
Pudfark
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
Howdy DH...
Slick's never been on the receiving end of deadly force.
The tell of that is his opinion here.
Anybody who has ever been on that shit end of the stick?
Could all tell ya this?
What ever you got to defend yourself?
Ain't enough...and if they could at that moment,
get something better and bigger?
They'd give a testicle to have it, right then.
Arm chair commando's have never understood that....
Though they're eager to tell ya all about it....after a few beers.
Slick's never been on the receiving end of deadly force.
The tell of that is his opinion here.
Anybody who has ever been on that shit end of the stick?
Could all tell ya this?
What ever you got to defend yourself?
Ain't enough...and if they could at that moment,
get something better and bigger?
They'd give a testicle to have it, right then.
Arm chair commando's have never understood that....
Though they're eager to tell ya all about it....after a few beers.
-
Pudfark
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
I agree with ya Slick...we need a bunch of that too.callmeslick wrote:so, you have a problem with the current restrictions on machine guns, grenade launchers and bazookas? No different.Darkhorse wrote:I am thinking "stupid and not getting it" falls onto you. The banning of any firearm is the issue! I could care less if you and your type think it is "NECESSARY"!! Once we let you get your foot in the door when will it stop? That is the issue!!!
Lets ease up the Class III and IV and V restrictions...it's unfair to
everybody. Let's see who can be the first to own a bazooka on their block...
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
actually, you are wrong. Got lucky, the guy missed(says something for aim, I'm a big target)Pudfark wrote:Howdy DH...
Slick's never been on the receiving end of deadly force.
The tell of that is his opinion here.
Still, the experience didn't make me run out and buy a bigger gun.....just sharpened the wits a bit. Hmmm, come to think of it, perhaps a gun is a better choice for some of you.
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
Good grief! Did you bother to read the post I pointed out?callmeslick wrote:gawd, you folks are relentlessly stupid. The matter isn't whether an AR-15 is suitable for hunting. Hell, hunting is not even the point of the 2nd amendment, it is WHETHER AN AR-15 type is NECESSARY for SELFDEFENSE. Get it? Likely not, if you haven't caught on by this point.
Let me ask you a simple question. Are all guns sold suppose to be for personal defense? Is that all they're good for? Personally, that was the last reason I ever bought a gun for.
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: For Your Eyes Slick
no, Buzz, but if the discussion is triggered by Gun Control Legislation, we are talking SOLELY about limitations of the 2nd Amendment, and that has no bearing on hunting. And, as I tried to point out before, Buzz, a ban on AR15 types would be intended to lessen availability to get into the hands of loons who murder others. Hunting or recreational use is all well and good, but neither trumps the 'General Welfare' of the nation. That last part in in the Constitution.