A Complete Waste of Space

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Buzz wrote:I don't feel anybody needs an assault rifle for home protection.

Then what does the average "Joe-on-the-street" need with an assault rifle?

Not bad R_D...
I'll throw it at you this way....underhanded.
What does the average person need in terms of horse power in their vehicle?
120 hp would suffice for 99% of all folks personal needs. Why are so many vehicles
sold with engines, in excess of 200,300,400,500 hp? Because folks want that "power" . Power that can't be justified for their needs. Power, that they buy/afford.

Compare that...to the assault rifle thingy. I agree, most folks don't have a "need" for them. However, in this country, they have a "right" to them.

Which all boils down to this?
It's a helluva lot easier to regulate the "privilege" of driving and vehicles.
Than it is to regulate "rights".

Somehow...the idea of Slick and his "Assault Goose Gun"?
Makes me giggle.

Buzz has got ya by the short hairs....Slick.

Pudfark wrote:

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Buzz wrote:I don't feel anybody needs an assault rifle for home protection.

Then what does the average "Joe-on-the-street" need with an assault rifle?

Not bad R_D...
I'll throw it at you this way....underhanded.
What does the average person need in terms of horse power in their vehicle?
120 hp would suffice for 99% of all folks personal needs. Why are so many vehicles
sold with engines, in excess of 200,300,400,500 hp? Because folks want that "power" . Power that can't be justified for their needs. Power, that they buy/afford.

great analogy. Now, tell me how much more likely my buying a Ferrari is going to make me to kill large numbers of people, should I go nuts, or something.

Compare that...to the assault rifle thingy. I agree, most folks don't have a "need" for them. However, in this country, they have a "right" to them.

no, they have a Right to 'Bear Arms'.....nothing about military arms, or regulation of the type of arms, nothing.

Which all boils down to this?

sort of the question I've asked myself since reading this post.....

It's a helluva lot easier to regulate the "privilege" of driving and vehicles.
Than it is to regulate "rights".

Justice Scalia, and others, would say it can be done. Simply because something is not 'easy' does not mean it is not the right thing to do for the good of the nation. And, this ought to be a no-brainer.

Pudfark wrote:Somehow...the idea of Slick and his "Assault Goose Gun"?
Makes me giggle.

Buzz has got ya by the short hairs....Slick.

drinking early, as Res would ask?
No, Buzz has nothing but an empty, chest-thumping idea of defending rights that don't exist, in the way he demands they do.

Texas Sandy Beach

The old argument of "If'n it don't say, it don't mean"...don't work.
Still having a chuckle with yer "Goosey Gun".

You've never seemed to understand something as simple as this:
When there's no one to call and no one to come?
It falls to you.
Or on you.
Excuses, misunderstandings...don't mean shit then.
People who don't get the meaning of this?
Get it in the end.

Simples.

callmeslick wrote:they have a Right to 'Bear Arms'.....nothing about military arms, or regulation of the type of arms, nothing.

That's it in a nut shell.
Your 2nd amendment makes no consideration what-so-ever for the number or type of arms you have the right bear.
Your country could ban 95% of all weapons sold and it still wouldn't infringe on your 2nd amendment rights.

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

callmeslick wrote:they have a Right to 'Bear Arms'.....nothing about military arms, or regulation of the type of arms, nothing.

That's it in a nut shell.
Your 2nd amendment makes no consideration what-so-ever for the number or type of arms you have the right bear.
Your country could ban 95% of all weapons sold and it still wouldn't infringe on your 2nd amendment rights.

The "Canadian Interpretation".....
From, the "Canadian Club"...

Pudfark wrote:

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

callmeslick wrote:they have a Right to 'Bear Arms'.....nothing about military arms, or regulation of the type of arms, nothing.

That's it in a nut shell.
Your 2nd amendment makes no consideration what-so-ever for the number or type of arms you have the right bear.
Your country could ban 95% of all weapons sold and it still wouldn't infringe on your 2nd amendment rights.

The "Canadian Interpretation".....
From, the "Canadian Club"...

No.
The common sense interpretation.

Reservoir_Dog wrote:That's it in a nut shell.

The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!