Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban


SnyderShrugged

Recommended Posts

Semiautomatics are an "assault weapon"? Give me a freaking break! So my 10/22 with a 20 round magazine is an assualt rifle now?

Absolutely. Your 20-round magazine has no practical application outside of inflicting massive damage upon people. What the hell do you need 20 rounds ready for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Your 20-round magazine has no practical application outside of inflicting massive damage upon people. What the hell do you need 20 rounds ready for?

Well, King George could show up at any minute and try to take back our independence.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok forgive me if this point has already been made but I'm way too drunk to read the whole thread.

The whole point of our constitutionsl right to bear arms is to provide a check to the power of the gubment. Unfortunately, anyone who thinks that having an assault weapon provides that is out of his ever lovin' mind. Just google "predator drone" to see what I mean. Military weapons technology has progressed to the point where Joe Blow with his AR-15 isn't going to resist the power of the Govt. So, does that mean we should all be allowed to own military hardware to give our right to bear arms teeth? Or does it perhaps mean that our individual pwnership of assault weapons doesn't amount to much, in which case we're taking on the risk of availability of assault weapons without the intended purose (i.e. counterweight to Govt power) being fulfilled?

For the record I have owned one of the aforementioned "evil" assault weapons since the '90s and it hasn't been used either to protect me from the Govt or an intruder during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok forgive me if this point has already been made but I'm way too drunk to read the whole thread.

The whole point of our constitutionsl right to bear arms is to provide a check to the power of the gubment. Unfortunately, anyone who thinks that having an assault weapon provides that is out of his ever lovin' mind. Just google "predator drone" to see what I mean. Military weapons technology has progressed to the point where Joe Blow with his AR-15 isn't going to resist the power of the Govt. So, does that mean we should all be allowed to own military hardware to give our right to bear arms teeth? Or does it perhaps mean our assault weapons don't amount to much in which case we're taking on the risk of availability of assault weapons without the intended purose (ie counterweight to Govt power) being fulfilled?

.

Strawman post of the thread

Just see well any "insurgency" and how important it is to maintain an armed populace.

Again, every major gun legislation in the 20th century came after the federal government got spooked

1932 Bonus army-----1934 Firearms Act

1960s and Vietnam Protest---------1968 Gunlaws

1993 Waco and Ruby Ridge--------1994 AWB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The leftists only support the Constitution when it backs their ideology.
The rightists only support the Constitution when it backs their ideology.
Actually it seems, more and more lately, that BOTH sides only support the constitution when it backs their ideology. How bout we dispense with the ideology (and partisan hackery) and just get **** done.

I agree with all of these statements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok forgive me if this point has already been made but I'm way too drunk to read the whole thread.

The whole point of our constitutionsl right to bear arms is to provide a check to the power of the gubment. Unfortunately, anyone who thinks that having an assault weapon provides that is out of his ever lovin' mind. Just google "predator drone" to see what I mean. Military weapons technology has progressed to the point where Joe Blow with his AR-15 isn't going to resist the power of the Govt. So, does that mean we should all be allowed to own military hardware to give our right to bear arms teeth? Or does it perhaps mean that our individual pwnership of assault weapons doesn't amount to much, in which case we're taking on the risk of availability of assault weapons without the intended purose (i.e. counterweight to Govt power) being fulfilled?

For the record I have owned one of the aforementioned "evil" assault weapons since the '90s and it hasn't been used either to protect me from the Govt or an intruder during that time.

Which is why we need more liberal arms laws, allowing the citizens to own military grade weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman post of the thread

Just see well any "insurgency" and how important it is to maintain an armed populace.

Again, every major gun legislation in the 20th century came after the federal government got spooked

1932 Bonus army-----1934 Firearms Act

1960s and Vietnam Protest---------1968 Gunlaws

1993 Waco and Ruby Ridge--------1994 AWB

So you're saying the surge didn't work after all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok forgive me if this point has already been made but I'm way too drunk to read the whole thread.

The whole point of our constitutionsl right to bear arms is to provide a check to the power of the gubment. Unfortunately, anyone who thinks that having an assault weapon provides that is out of his ever lovin' mind.

The Taliban didn't get your memo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

damn ,new smilies

I noticed them too. They are entirely too big. I think that they look ridiculous.

Anyhow, to stay on topic...

I am against an assault weapons ban. I don't own any guns but I like them. They are fun to shoot and I will someday be a gun owner. I will likely not own a gun that is going to be banned, but I like the option to be out there if I wanted.

My opinion on gun ownership is close to the same as my opinion on drugs. Guns will still be available but will be illegal. The people who want them will get them. Those people will be regarded as criminals even though they have hurt nobody. Banning assault weapons will turn people into criminals that otherwise would not be criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're crazy over God, too. Pretty much not going to gain any ground with that excuse over here. And it certainly seems that fear mongering is a fine tactic so long as it's over something you're actually afraid of.

~Bang

I see more fear mongers on the anti-gun side. Particularly false fears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see more fear mongers on the anti-gun side. Particularly false fears.

Kind of ironic to attribute fear mongering to one side given Cjcdaman's post..and FWIW I'm not part of the anti-gun crowd. I think there's plenty of fear mongering on both sides of the guns debate thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman post of the thread

Just see well any "insurgency" and how important it is to maintain an armed populace.

Again, every major gun legislation in the 20th century came after the federal government got spooked

1932 Bonus army-----1934 Firearms Act

1960s and Vietnam Protest---------1968 Gunlaws

1993 Waco and Ruby Ridge--------1994 AWB

It sounds like a good reason to limit firearms then doesn't it? I'm not a fan of insurgencies in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...