Originally posted by Colonel
0h, for the repugnants that don't know, "Survey says..." is just the Colonel's rhetoric.

Once again, I am accused of being a conservative simply because I disagree with Colonel. Talk about knee-jerk reactions and bias, why don't you. I'm just waiting for cognitive dissonance to catch up to you.

There is no real survey unless I link to it. There are no adjoining statistics.
Sheesh.

That was exactly my point, Tiger. Boy, you're sharp today

I am really just too tired of fighting with something as minor as this. Beating you repugnants collectively has worn me out. See me in a few hours after a few beers.

Originally posted by Fry2
I think I'll hold on to my guns just in case we need to find out who the better snipers are. The locals who know the terrain with a Remington 700 or the "troops" with an M24 and feeling a bit lost.

Tsk tsk tsk.

First, buy a piece of property like me....one easy access point, with the other 3 sides requirering a woodland/farmland trek of some distance.
Next, become proficient like me & Nugent with a compound bow.
You hit ANYTHING in ANY SPOT with a 125 grain broadhead leaving your fingers at a 100 lbs.......it will have a hole clean through that wont burn seal like a bullet wound.....just bleed.....& bleed.......& bleeeeeeeeed till it's dry.
And vote Democrat damnit....you sound like a whacked out militia man as it is....they'll come looking for you first!

Originally posted by Colonel
I am really just too tired of fighting with something as minor as this. Beating you repugnants collectively has worn me out. See me in a few hours after a few beers.

Too tired after a single post? I think you give me too much credit. And again with the false accusations of conservatism based on disagreement. Remember, since conservatives are always wrong, all you have to do is call someone that and all burden of debate is lifted from your shoulders.

Concession accepted.

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by Esoterica]

Next, become proficient like me & Nugent with a compound bow.
You hit ANYTHING in ANY SPOT with a 125 grain broadhead leaving your fingers at a 100 lbs.......it will have a hole clean through that wont burn seal like a bullet wound.....just bleed.....& bleed.......& bleeeeeeeeed till it's dry.

Who exactly sounds like a whacked out militia man?

I don't even hunt. I have no intention of killing anyone or anything unless I truly need to. As things stand I still have Stop& Shop to supply my protein needs and honest work provides my family and I the means for the rest of our needs.

Why does everyone think that the primary reason people have guns is to kill? I have been a gun owner for thirty years and only killed twice. Once when my cat maimed a rabbit and then lost interest. Second when someone had hit a deer on the road and it was lying there flopping and making a horrible noise.

I can say, honestly, that I hated the experience both times.

I can also say that I prevented a crime two times by having a gun on/with me. Guess what? No shots fired and no one was hurt in either one.

I'm sorry for boring you with this. Feel free to get back to your "Faces of Death" collection.

"Faces of Death"
It's really just experience (negative ) that has me postioned to be ever vigilent.
I've seen things first hand and I've seen mob mentality.
"practice peace but prepare for war" is not too shabby a credo these days.
Though in practice, my magnum is here for target shooting & too protect against rabid animals.

Originally posted by Colonel
We aren't against gun ownership. Just to put a few regulations makes it that we are taking your guns away? That doesn't make sense. Stop buying into the propoganda.

No regulation controlling or restricting weapons is allowed because of the 2nd amendment. "....shall not be infringed" ring a bell?

BT, the Posse Comitatus Act has been violated more times than you can count, and more times during the previous admin than this one. Of course, this one hasn't gone into its second term, yet.

Remember a little thing called Waco?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No regulation controlling or restricting weapons is allowed because of the 2nd amendment. "....shall not be infringed" ring a bell?

No right to gun ownership is being infringed---just be regulated. It is just establsihng a process as to HOW to own a weapon.

[Edited on 30-4-2004 by Colonel]

...it's ever been, and really my biggest concern these days.
I actually worry more about my government's use of the military domestically in a reaction than I do to the actual action.
I swear, the first time I stepped off the train & saw this pimple faced kid fully locked, armored & loaded, I had such an unspeakable sense of dread that it disturbed me for a good week.

Originally posted by Bout Time
...it's ever been, and really my biggest concern these days.
I actually worry more about my government's use of the military domestically in a reaction than I do to the actual action.
I swear, the first time I stepped off the train & saw this pimple faced kid fully locked, armored & loaded, I had such an unspeakable sense of dread that it disturbed me for a good week.

Where was this at????

Originally posted by Colonel
Where was this at????

I am not concerned about MOUT training in the least. I was trained in MOUT and more for about 2 1/2 months and I can tell you that it is a good idea, more or less.

As for the 2nd Amendment, no one, and I mean no one, thinks that it should NEVER be infringed upon. Some weapons just should not be allowed.

Rocket Launchers
Grenades
Etc

But there is still a need for weapons that are meant to kill PEOPLE.

Hunting and target practice are not the only reasons to own a gun. I want a gun to kill people.

Should I need one (i.e. Martial Law, invasion, home protection) a weapon to kill people is just the tool to have.

Opulence has caused people to think that we could never have something like that in our country. I mean hey, we're so big and bad right? The government is holy and on our side right?

Hell no.

Colonel, are you serious? Do you think playing word games changes anything? In communist states you have to prove you have a need for a weapon before you are issued a permit and allowed to have one.

We need regulations to tell us how to own a weapon? Get real. Who is going to tell us how to own one? The very entity that gives us cause to own a weapon, the government? The second amendment is so we will have the ability to take back the government were it to become tyrannical or arbitrary in rule. Don't try and tell me that its ok for the fox to tell the chickens how to protect themselves.

Jethro, by what standards do you say the citizens cannot own a grenade launcher? By reading what the Founders suggested, it would be very appropriate for some of us to own that. Automatic weapons, to. Count me out, I prefer semiautos like the mini-14 or MAC-90, but those weapons certainly would have a need were the population decide enough is enough and organize.
It is not within the authority of the federal government to insure that the citizen is handicapped by regulations and statutes.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Jethro, by what standards do you say the citizens cannot own a grenade launcher? By reading what the Founders suggested, it would be very appropriate for some of us to own that. Automatic weapons, to.

Understood, and I am on your side, but there has to be some line drawn somewhere, otherwise nuclear warheads and white phosphorous would become household items. I have no issues with guns, no matter what type. It's the other things that could be more trouble than they are worth.

Count me out, I prefer semiautos like the mini-14 or MAC-90, but those weapons certainly would have a need were the population decide enough is enough and organize.

Agreed.

It is not within the authority of the federal government to insure that the citizen is handicapped by regulations and statutes.

I'm down with you on this. I whole heartedly agree with an armed citizenry, and heavily at that.

There also needs to be limits on the regulations for keeping them. The smart gun bull#, the triggerlock bull#, and other fun things like that are preventing actual use should the need arise.

Well i have to say that U.S forces didnt know waht to expect when they invaded iraq Colonel sorry dude but i dont see eye to eye with you on this 1 its just too far fetched.

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by Bout Time
...it's ever been, and really my biggest concern these days.
I actually worry more about my government's use of the military domestically in a reaction than I do to the actual action.
I swear, the first time I stepped off the train & saw this pimple faced kid fully locked, armored & loaded, I had such an unspeakable sense of dread that it disturbed me for a good week.

Where was this at????

In the train stations, NYC. Didn't they deploy in the DC Metro rail stations too?
Whenever we saw that fake Rainbow of Alert nonsense, we had the kiddies locked & loaded in the train stations.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The rest of the theory goes to pot, as the U.S. military will not be used in the U.S.

Probably true. But think of all the soldiers who return from the next few wars and end up back in the hood. Some of them probably a little nutty from their experiences.

There will be a lot of people with good MOUT technique and the capability to train others. I see the cities as great holdouts. Now just if the city people could learn to live with out electricity or refrigeration...

Formula for cannabalism

DC

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Remember a little thing called Waco?

I remember hearing two different things about military involvement at Waco. The first was the official line that said that military personnel were used only in an advisory capacity, and the second which said that PSYOPS were used for noise operations.

The details of the noise operations weren't of the Noriega variety. More like crying babies and dying animal sounds. Scraping metal and loud bangings.

Who knows anything about that? Also, does Posse Comitatus aim to prevent any and all use of military in civilian law enforcement, or might advice be considered OK? Any trials set precedence there?

DC

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by DeltaChaos]

This debate always brings to my mind the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa wishes for world peace and all the world's weapons are destroyed. Kang & Kodos (the aliens) begin to take over the world wielding a 2x4 with a nail in it. They are eventually beaten back when the humans get a bigger board with a bigger nail.

Originally posted by Homer Jay
This debate always brings to my mind the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa wishes for world peace and all the world's weapons are destroyed. Kang & Kodos (the aliens) begin to take over the world wielding a 2x4 with a nail in it. They are eventually beaten back when the humans get a bigger board with a bigger nail.

Don't tell me, Homer Jay. All of your posts are going to either refer to, or carry the theme of the Simpsons, aren't they? That's a pretty good gimmick!

And an excellent episode, too, by the way.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by DeltaChaos]