Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 There is absolutely NO reason that internet discussion boards are needed by American Citizens. There is absolutely no reason an American needs a V8 engine in their vehicle either. The speed limit is 55 anyhow, and it eats to much gas. Let's ban V8 engines. There is no reason an American needs a crotch rocket motorcycle either. They just fly up and down the interstates at 100 + miles an hour, causing accidents and killing people. We should ban them too. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 good point, but one that you and most of the guys on the right didn't make when the Bush admin was spying on US Citizens. Why the concern now? So why does the left only believe in 9 amendments? Its an absurd argument. I think there are many logical Dems who view the gun battle as a loser and a quick and easy way to give some sort of footing to a flailing right wing in our country The Dems lost the gun battle in 1994 when they were quickly ushered out of Congress for the AWB And you also notice that the 3 big gun control laws passed in the last 100 years, the 1934 Firearms Act, the 1968 gun laws and the 1994 AWB came after some sort of massive protest or action against the federal government (1932 Bonus army, 1968 you had anti Vietnam protests and 1993 you had Waco and Ruby Ridge) Politicians only enact anti-gun laws when they are scared of the populace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 and the point that is ALWAYS missed with the gun banners, statistics CONSISTENTLY show...that banning guns does not slow or eliminate gun crimes. That's the point isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 How about this for a compromise. The NRA and gun owners back off of their stupid objections to urban communities like Washington DC/Chicago/Boston having voter referendums and outlawing carrying guns. And the government agrees to no stupid across the board ban on categories of weapons which don't really accomplish anything anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 How about this for a compromise. The NRA and gun owners back off of their stupid objections to urban communities like Washington DC/Chicago/Boston having voter referendums and outlawing guns. And the government agrees to no stupid across the board ban on categories of weapons which don't really accomplish anything anyway. How about this for a compromise? The ACLU backs off allowing people in the heartland to assemble wherever they please, and massive protests can be allowed in urban communities. Or how about this, abortions are banned in the rural heartland but allowed in urban areas? Do either of those work? A few more compromises Lets have some states vote on whether or not the 13th amendment applies to them Same with the civil rights act Women's suffrage? Peh, I think rural areas should get to decide if they want to let women vote See how absurd this "compromise" is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 How about this for a compromise. The NRA and gun owners back off of their stupid objections to urban communities like Washington DC/Chicago/Boston having voter referendums and outlawing carrying guns. And the government agrees to no stupid across the board ban on categories of weapons which don't really accomplish anything anyway. I could not support that move. If an individual in D.C. wants to own a gun, the 2nd Ammendment affords him/her that right to make his own decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 so effectively "You can live in D.C. if you want, but you have to leave your guns at the border, because they aren't welcome here." Now that's American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I could not support that move. If an individual in D.C. wants to own a gun, the 2nd Ammendment affords him/her that right to make his own decision. I know D.C. is not a state, but this does go back to the always interesting question of state's rights. If I lived in D.C. i'd sure as heck want a gun, would most likely move. However, do they have a right as a populace to ban guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I know D.C. is not a state, but this does go back to the always interesting question of state's rights.If I lived in D.C. i'd sure as heck want a gun, would most likely move. However, do they have a right as a populace to ban guns? I think it would be equivalent of if DC had the right as a populace to ban women from voting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 However, do they have a right as a populace to ban guns? No they don't. How is this any different from a town in some state in the deep south voting that they don't want whites and blacks eating in the same restaurant together? Both are wrong, and it's no different. The American majority decides what is best for Americans, not individual communites. If not, again what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm against banning them, but you must have a really tiny ... if you need an assault weapon. To me, assault weapon=machinegun. THOSE, if anything, should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 This and the Holt Act discussed a few days ago is going to kill Democrats in Red states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm against banning them, but you must have a really tiny ... if you need an assault weapon. To me, assault weapon=machinegun. THOSE, if anything, should be banned. Banning some guns, is the foot in the door to banning ALL guns. Once you open that door, all guns are fair game, because most of the people doing the banning have NO IDEA what they are talking about when it comes to guns. It's like banning the magazine that holds 11 rounds, but keeping the one that holds 10 legal. Does the 11th round really matter? Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm against banning them, but you must have a really tiny ... if you need an assault weapon. To me, assault weapon=machinegun. THOSE, if anything, should be banned. Machine guns were banned in 1934 And what about women who like to own guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 And what about women who like to own guns? They are ugly, insecure creatures who turn to guns because nobody liked them in school. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 http://www.womenshooters.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think it would be equivalent of if DC had the right as a populace to ban women from voting Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Damn, I better call my uncle and tell him to set up the AA guns on his farm if assault rifles are banned. FBI will be all over him with choppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 There is absolutely NO reason your average American citizen needs an assault rifle. I have one. I hunt with it. It's a fantastic rifle. Why should you get to decide what I need because you are scared of how the weapon looks. There is so much ignorance surrounding what an assault rifle is it is laughable. My "assault rifle" is no more dangerous than any hunting rifle. In fact, my 30/30 lever action holds 5 more rounds than my boogey man assault rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1311 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Machine guns were banned in 1934 Machine guns are legal to own in most states, including Maryland. They're fun to shoot, but expensive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 close down all swimming pools. way too many kids die in them. these arguments are stupid :2cents: analogies only work when their is a strong resemblance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 these arguments are stupid :2cents:analogies only work when their is a strong resemblance except that swimming pools kill more people than "assult weapons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Chris Rock has it right "You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that's right. I think all bullets should cost $5000. $5000 for a bullet. You know why? 'Cause if a bullet costs $5000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders. … Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, "Damn, he must have did something."" I know you are trying to be funny, but Chris Rock could'nt be more wrong. 1. Criminals would still find a way to get their hands on "bullets". 2. Sportsman wouldn't be able to hunt 3. The deer population would become out of control 4. Car accidents because of deer would go through the roof. 5. Insurance premiums would go through the roof. 6. Insurance companies would release coyotes into suburban amd rural areas to help control the deer population.(like they did in my comunity several years ago, I saw one in a field behind my house last week) 7. Deer would suffer slow painful deaths via car and coyote. 8. People would be pissing and moaning about how they are being held hostage by the coyotes 9. Family pets would dissappear 10. The People wouldn't be able to protect themselves from the coyotes because bullets are to darn expensive. Ridiculous and far fetched, possibly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Machine guns are legal to own in most states, including Maryland. They're fun to shoot, but expensive! You have to jump through some serious hoops and get a class 3 liscence. It isn't exactly easy to get a machine gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 so effectively "You can live in D.C. if you want, but you have to leave your guns at the border, because they aren't welcome here." Now that's American. Nobody is saying you can't own a gun, you just can't wear it in town.You know, like in Tombstone or Dodge City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.