Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

page: 15
43
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by spoogemonkey
 


you would just have to experience gun ownership to conceptualize it. to ban semi automatic weapons will be considered an act of war to us with your perceptions of our nature are not being a determining factor. would you like a proposed set number of reasons before your opinion is swayed? to ignore our eight reasons i say i'll give you 100. what would convince you to understand our stance on gun ownership? wikipedia has a list of causes of death by rate. some numbersGroup[4] Cause Percent
of
deaths All Male Female
– All Causes 100.00 916.1 954.7 877.1
A Cardiovascular diseases 29.34 268.8 259.3 278.4
B Infectious and parasitic diseases 23.04 211.3 221.7 200.4
A.1 Ischemic heart disease 12.64 115.8 121.4 110.1
C Malignant neoplasms (cancers) 12.49 114.4 126.9 101.7
A.2 Cerebrovascular disease (Stroke) 9.66 88.5 81.4 95.6
B.1 Respiratory infections 6.95 63.7 63.5 63.8
B.1.1 Lower respiratory tract infections 6.81 62.4 62.2 62.6


"why is this guy not worried about all the things I'm worried about"?
edit on 23-11-2012 by rockoperawriter because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spoogemonkey
 






2. we need guns to stop us from getting raped (on cars according to a few...being raped, that's very serious, very emotive, very poor argument if one knows the stats)



Such ignorance... Here's the stats according to the Justice Department. 97% of women who are armed when attacked prevent the attack and bring their attacker to justice or kill them or both. On the other hand 97% of women who are unarmed when attacked end up raped or dead or both. Which odds would you prefer the women on your family to have?

Also armed citizens stop more crime then all law enforcement in the country combined. Usually because they were the intended victims, They don't call 911 dial a prayer for nothing. Police rarely prevent crime they are usually only their to mop up after the crime has already happened. Counties and states the have the least amount of gun regulation and control or none at all also have the lowest crime rates. So their is really no argument the facts are in and have been for decades an armed citizenry does not cause more crime it in fact reduces crime dramatically and saves lives dramatically as illustrated in just a few of the incidents bellow.

www.akdart.com...

www.usconcealedcarry.com...

townhall.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.woai.com...

therealrevo.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

But fools will continue to regurgitate anti-gun media BS propaganda...



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoogemonkey
reply to post by Golf66
 


Ill-considered response. Invoking emotions and talking about loved ones is rather second rate.


Is there something else to consider that is more important than one's loved ones when discussing the right to a cognizant and effective defense strategy?


Originally posted by spoogemonkey
I have the same freedoms as you do I hate to say. No, I'm not allowed a gun, but that's okay, don't need one. Our guns were taken away and everythings the same (not sure what you're worried about?). What are you talking about?


No you do not - keep telling yourself that...


Originally posted by spoogemonkeyI
'm gambling? I have more of a chance to be raped here than there as I don't have a gun?


No, however, if you should encounter an armed assailant you are at a decided disadvantage for sure. What makes you more likely to be abused is your attitude. If it is your intent to give in to criminals demands for your property then they are more likely to see you as an easy target for more aggressive actions as well.



Originally posted by spoogemonkey
guns and egos I swear go hand in hand.


Just like ignorance and misinformation about them and the fear of them go with an ego that presumes to know what is best for someone else in a given situation.


Originally posted by spoogemonkey
And yeah.. Just drop that guy, way to go! shoot first.. ask later!


That is the law of the land here... If there is an intruder in your home he is presumed to be a threat and you are within your rights to shoot to kill without having to ask him his intent or wait for him to display a threatening weapon or posture. It’s called protecting the innocent from the criminals...

Besides, anyone who has killed another person before knows it’s something that will consume your thoughts (waking and dreaming) for the rest of your life. I have taken life before in every instance it was war and either me or the other person. I have called for airstrikes and artillery and killed 100's of people with them. It is not something to be taken lightly.

All that said I would not hesitate to drop an intruder in my home without asking him a single question. If it is not my wife or kid they have no business being there.... No one out here comes into a person’s house; we all know the consequences can be permanent.

Fairly clear to me that you will never get it... Sad really. My only hope is that you never have to find out the hard way why being armed is your right.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoogemonkey
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


"heh. okay. It's not that I hate guns, but you guys love them!"
This is an odd rebuttal. Other people love something so you are put off by this? Weird.

"here are the arguments summed."

"1. we need guns to protect our loved ones"
There are many ways to protect our loved ones; guns are one means to do this.

"4. we must protect our home with guns"
Reasonable response. Yes, a firearm is a good way to protect one's home. Ideal if you're in a rural part of the country. Believe it or not, in many areas of the country human beings are Not on top of the food chain.

"5. Guns are fun"
Simplistic reason, but, yes, guns are fun. Spending a day outside with your friends and a rifle, taking the time to align your sites, burn through a couple hundred rounds of ammo, etc, is fun.

"6. shooting at animals is fun"
I don't hunt so I can't comment on this.

"7. shooting at cans is fun."
Another strange reason. I think a lot of firearm owners would agree that shooting at cans is kinda expensive. I've never talked to another gun owner who thought shooting at cans was fun.

"8. It's our heritage, we need them (or we'd have no fun)"
No comment.

"I'm obviously going to be hammered with stars for this, don't hold back guys."
I think you would avoid the "hammering" if your argument was more intelligible.

"The point is... you love the feeling. Taking down that can, taking down that animal, and very seldomly... taking down that intruder! BEING THE MAN! It feels good doesn't it! YEAH!"
It sounds as if these are YOUR reason and these are YOUR internalized feelings about gun ownership. "being the man" has yet to come up whenever I'm on the topic of guns with other people. These are stupid reasons to be frank and honest. If these are the feelings you have when considering firearms then I suggest you never own a weapon. If these are the responses you get from friends who own firearms then they shouldn't have guns either.

"Again.. for what reason might I not care about needing guns to protect myself? ask yourself.. Why is that? We have crime here, people get in fights... but "why is this guy not worried about all the things I'm worried about"? Think on it... and I'd be very happy to hear your response."
You cannot miss something you have never had so...

I'm not sure how you've compliled this list but to most responsible gun owners none of these reasons are valid or acceptable. In addition to being moronic they're incredible offensive.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoogemonkey
reply to post by SubTruth
 


I'm so daft that I'm backing the notion of risk mitigation. And no I don't think it's the wild west, but something tells me the mentality is not dissimilar wild west at times.

The argument "take our guns and only the bad guys will have guns" is particularly wild west in nature. Instead of trusting each other without guns, you trust that the other guy has a gun. What a wonderful idea.

If you really need that weaponry to protect yourself there is something very wrong. How many bad guys are coming after you? are they size of elephants?

An ideal situation in my mind is keep the guns out of the cities. Rural folks need them of course. And I have no issues with people going down to the range (or however you guys put it). But the idea that someone would walk around with a high powered gun for the reason of protection, would suggest that that person would be inclined to use it (no S**T). The problem is humans make mistakes, and may use disproportionate force on the bad guy (if a guy steals your wallet, does he deserve to be shot? killed?) your legal system says no. But that's what happens. It opens up vigilantism. Now of course there are times when lives are in danger, and gun use maybe be appropriate, but do we really trust humans to always make the right choice as to when to use proper force? Police all over the world are accused of that daily. Why? they're human and make mistakes.

Why do we have to wear seatbelts? we make mistakes
In my country, helmets are required on bikes etc (which you may see as wimpy.. to me it's safety).. why? we make mistakes
Why can't we drink drive? well we make a lot of mistakes doing that.
High powered weapons? any mistake would be potentially tragic.

Reading a lot of these posts makes me feel very!!! lucky to live where I do. So thanks guys! But I very much appreciate you're probably a really nice guy who is responsible. And that's great.
edit on 22-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)





I am glad you are proud of were you live.
I believe every country has the right to make laws that reflect the people.




My point if view is rather simple you have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on another persons right to do the same.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubTruth
I am glad you are proud of were you live.
I believe every country has the right to make laws that reflect the people.


Indeed, here in the rural US things are very different culturally from that in the UK and even in most urban areas of the US. I have no problem if the people of NYC or LA or Chicago want to have a nanny state - nor even that of the UK.


Originally posted by SubTruth
My point if view is rather simple you have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on another persons right to do the same.


Here is the heart of the issue... I have been to England, it was a beautiful place with quaint villages and towns and interesting people with a completely different mindset of your average American. Certainly, vastly different from those of us who live in rural America.

I saw cameras on every corner and intrusion into almost every aspect of the citizen’s lives - if that works for them, fine by me. I don't want to live there.

However, do not presume that your "culture" is morally superior in some way because the government has disarmed the citizenry.

And spooge goes on and on about egos and guns...what about egos period. To presume to tell others how to live is the peak of ego...



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
**all in one response**

I'm not comparing causes of death, just trying to tackle (and understand better) the issues of gun culture.

Now lets talk about freedom, not to make my country seem any better (although it may seem like it.. I'm really not though), just commenting on a few differences that I hope will make you guys reconsider saying I'm more neutered. This spills over from the topic at hand, but I feel it necessary to elaborate on why I feel you may be in part incorrect (and in part correct, I'm a fair guy
).

1. Healthcare. I'm more free because no matter where in the country I live or travel, and no matter how poor or hard I have it, if I have a medical issue (even out bush), it'll be looked at..Almost for free, anywhere around the nation and even in NZ. You guys should have that too (sincerely).

2. Drugs. not the fun/bad type, but the ones that help you. I don't have to pay very much at all for a large swathe of them. You guys are paying a lot more than me for the same stuff. I am more free because I don't need to worry about affording them. My poor old gran (lets get hypothetically emotive.. yeah!) who has had 15 hip replacements and keeps her dentures in the toilet (bless her socks), gets very well looked after even though her family is poor. The poor don't have that freedom where you are (and it's extremely saddening).

3. minimum wage. ours is bigger (relatively), yet you guys have a larger GDP (relatively). Those poor guys flipping burgers (I was one at one point) get the opportunity to attempt to provide for their family, or if they're young, get to buy more cool stuff (purchasing power parity ignored) than someone over there on minimum wage. They're more free.

4. Education. A kid whose family has little money wanting to get into uni, has that opportunity. The government will help pay for it regardless, and leave you with a nice low interest debt. I'm not talking of the quality of education (the big institutions in the US knocks spots off most in the world), I'm talking opportunity. And thanks to a higher min. wage, that kid has a chance at both working and studying ( a much tougher propistion in the US).

5. Incarceration rate. Well you guys are off the wall in that regard. Less of our people are locked up for petty offences than yours. Is that freedom? yep that's real freedom. People who commit nasty crime should be put away for sure, don't get me wrong there.

Now I'll need to concede a few freedoms (cause I'm a balanced guy).

1. Taxes, yours are lower, you're more free in that regard no doubt

2. Owning guns.. obvious.

3. I have to wear a helmet on a push / motorbike bike.

edit: 4. Your property prices are less (well they are now)

I actually can't think of much else, and I would like for you guys to add to the list if you would be so kind.

What I've written is a fair tangent, but they're freedoms nonetheless wouldn't you agree?

I'm not trying to say my country is better, it is how it is (and hopefully changing).. I'm just displaying my notion of freedom and how when I'm told I'm less free, the argument falls apart rather quickly.

So back to firearms. I respect the stats, not that many die from guns for sure. I also appreciate that if someone had a gun and they were in trouble, it'd be pretty handy.

I appreciate that you guys treat your weapons with respect, lock them up etc. But I fail to see how owning one (or being allowed to own one) actually makes you free. I also agree with "people kill people, not guns". And I'm not asking you to lay down your arms at all (wouldn't dare! not with all them guns pointing at me!). I'm also certain that if everyone were like you guys (fine upstanding citizens), we wouldn't be having this conversation as there wouldn't be a problem.

You're probably all thinking "this bloke should shut up and just not come over if he hates it". I digress. It's alarming to see (or read) the reasons for which you wish to hold on to them. Sport and hunting is a ok with me, but you're not taking down wooly mammoths.

And no, I don't hate guns. I've had a lot of fun having a go here with a .22 (potato gun), Vietnam on an ak47 and m16 I think, and in the US when I was there a few years back.. I actually can't remember which types.. there were too many lol.

I hope you guys don't think I'm s^&t stirring (too much heh). I'm just a concerned fellow. All your fears just seem hyperinflated, which alludes to the fact it's just fun, and all the rest is predominantly (not completely, but a lot) hyperbole.

Are you sure owning guns (high powered ones) is a necessity for a functioning society? Are you sure it'd be that bad if a few were taken away?

And I do thank you all for reading my responses, as I'm sure it elevates a few heart rates
sorry about that.




edit on 23-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: concession



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


Mate.. they're the reasons you guys put forth. I'm not making them up. Offensive? lol no it's not. they're your reasons, with some built in sarcasm

By shooting at cans, I mean target shooting..

and by saying "hammered with stars", it was supposed to be a joke (as I'm obviously not on the right side). So before one can offer praise regards one argumentative skills (sarcasm again), let's establish a base level of comprehension to avoid any further confusion



edit on 23-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I absolutely support our Right to Bear Arms and I am a Hunter and own a variety of Guns. Still I have no issue with having certain weapons banned as anyone with a bit of skill can easily convert a Assault Rifle that has been designed to be semi-automatic to becoming Full Automatic.


It is not as easy as you think, but if somehow you manage to convert from semi to full auto and get caught, that means ten years behind bars. And I shouldn't be the one to say full auto is dumb for more than just legal and safety issues, it is also a huge waste of ammunition.

When you are a soldier fighting a war everything but lives are expendable. For civilians it is wreckful behavior!

Considering the above I think it is uncalled for the government to ban any semi-auto weapon. It is a totally unnecessary restriction imo.


What I completely disagree with is Trigger Lock Laws as the time it takes to get a key...unlock a trigger and remove the lock is way too much time if one found themselves being attacked in their home in the middle of the night.


Trigger locks are good provided you have the key easily accessible only to you. What is extremely dumb however is the state telling people that they need to store the gun and ammo seperately in different safe locations. I mean come on that is pure nonsense overkill legislation. Making laws for the sake of combating hysteria.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


"Are you sure owning guns (high powered ones) is a necessity for a functioning society? Are you sure it'd be that bad if a few were taken away?"

yeah like 100 percent sure. can't let those that do think king kong got nothing on 'em. it's a simple impliment for a simple and very real purpose. like a jag, sleek, awesome, fast, does what it was built for, but in an accident anybody is lucky to be left with a scar. most are left in wheelchairs, or in an urn. same thing goes for guns, trips to the zoo with someone who has attention deficit disorder, hammers, forks, skyscrapers with shorter buildings with lower case t's on top right next to them. yeah neighbor, our west is gonna be wild forever. party with us, shoot with us, you have made me listen to orange goblin a lot so did my drummer



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Your posts are as intelligent as your avatar....

Converting from semi to full is relatively easy and common... a simple google search would've told you that...


A simple google search will tell you that you need federal paperwork done just to get the automatic sear to replace the semi-auto sear. ONLY the government has that sear and thus without it, you CANNOT do a damm thing.

Then after you get the auto-sear there are many more adjustments that need to be made for the gun to function properly. Only a skilled gunsmith can do these modifications.

The point is it is IMPOSSIBLE to convert any semi to full unless you do some home-made job that explodes in your hands and kills you.



The US is NOT trying to ban a huge list of guns, or letting the UN write it's laws - that's paranoia - a dodgy trait for someone with a lot of guns; that being said, the US SHOULD ban a lot more and enforce a lot more... the gun fatality rate in the US is simply pathetic.
edit on 22-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)


Some legislation is definitely necessary, but liberal states tend to over-regulate to the point of discouraging a lot of folks who would otherwise be interested. Other states give out guns a little too easy, which means crime gangs buy them there and ship them to the northeast in the black market.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I appreciate you've been in war, and I'm sure it would consume someone no doubt (even topping an intruder). And with that background I respect why someone like yourself would want to choose to own one. I think I would too.

So my greatest respect to you and what you must've been through.

But that isn't our world today, although it seems that is more the reality over there than here.

I do get it, but what I want you to get is that there is life after restrictions (it seems like you guys think something really bad will happen if they're taken away). There are places in the world which are just as free (and as i've pointed out, sometimes more free) , and they don't worry about guns.

Again, much respect to your past.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoogemonkey
I do get it, but what I want you to get is that there is life after restrictions (it seems like you guys think something really bad will happen if they're taken away).


Something bad will happen if the choice is removed - it will be yet another thing we are restricted from doing. Again, semi-auto military style weapons are not something most Americans own. They are expensive to buy and if you have full auto mode they are more expensive to shoot.

Full auto is about the most ineffective way to hit anything even in combat most Soldiers don't do it. At least not in Special Operations. Aimed fire is more effective. That said there are some times that a wall of lead is needed to gain fire superiority. It is a tricky business balancing that call between ammo management and its necessity.

To me it represents yet another tick mark on the road to tyranny. Perhaps I am hypersensitive since I have been to places where real tyranny exists. I have fought for people who know nothing else.

The first step in instituting any form of social control is disarming the citizenry. Having studied warfare (insurgency and counter-insurgency) any government that wants to control the population’s speech, actions and even their thoughts must first place more restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons. It is right out of the dictator 101 training manual


Originally posted by spoogemonkey
There are places in the world which are just as free (and as I’ve pointed out, sometimes more free) , and they don't worry about guns.


I think your assessment of freedom is based on your personal interpretations and expectations having grown up in a semi-socialist nation. Like I said, I spent some time in the UK while on an exchange with the good men of SAS. The average citizen there welcomes and accepts the government intrusions into their lives.

Here that is not the case.

Perhaps we are headed in this direction, then again perhaps we will not accept it. Who knows America is a unique place and the people are different and expect more freedom.

All that said, we are also a fledgling nation with some issues to work out. England was a fascinating place with as one bloke put it houses older than the US. That is true I accompanied him to a breakfast pheasant hunt on a farm - the main house was more than 300 years old.


Originally posted by spoogemonkey
Again, much respect to your past.


Life is all about perspective I guess.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PMNOrlando
 


You guys have been screaming this mantra since Clinton, well-- you've still got your precious guns?
(Maybe, if BUSH2 not made you so damned scared of your shadow, you woiuldn't be so jumpy)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by braunbear
 


believe me i know why i would be jumpy. california has gun bans. don't get me wrong it ain't bad. i would go there if gun laws in california incorporated open carry of all types rifles, pistols and shotguns for all men and women over 21 but it's too dangerous. would love to go there but whatever. also maybe if clinton wasn't such a dick about weapons bans, making us suspicious, we would be less suspicious



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Something bad will happen if the choice is removed


Well that does make some sense, however one must not mistake the intentions of regulation. Have, in the devoloped world where the choice has been removed, any nations taken a dive into tyranny? I can't think of any. I'm in Australia (not the uk if you thought that.. I wasn't that clear), and to be frank, there have been no drawbacks. If there have been it would be news to me. Now it's hard to compare two countries of course, and in US it would probably be a very different situation, so I need to realise that.


The first step in instituting any form of social control is disarming the citizenry. Having studied warfare (insurgency and counter-insurgency) any government that wants to control the population’s speech, actions and even their thoughts must first place more restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons. It is right out of the dictator 101 training manual


Certainly. However the intention of restricting ones' ownership rights is not always for greater social control. There are other reasons, the main being a reaction to popular opinion (obviously not the US). In the US, it would appear to me they are trying to create a paradigm shift, and not diminish a check of their power (at odds to the words in your 2A I realise that). My major reason for believing this is that your guns most likely aren't enough to institute change. Conversely in another thread a few moons ago, someone stated "well, we'd put up a bloody good fight, and it'd be a bloody fight.. very bloody". This is very true I'm sure of it.

But I think we should probably give the benefit of the doubt (someone like yourself has every reason and right to laugh at that), and consider the move towards regulation to be not dissimilar to the regulation of seatbelts. Which is to say "it's for your own good". I understand that someone like yourself would might think (and correct me if I'm wrong) "bugger off, I can use this machinery better and safer than most".. and you're right. So it very much is a case of a few rotten eggs spoiling it for everyone. But legislators can't dicriminate in that regard, it needs to be holistic (if done at all obviously).

Ironically though, you and a lot of guys and girls over there would feel less safe without a gun, fair enough.


I think your assessment of freedom is based on your personal interpretations and expectations having grown up in a semi-socialist nation. Like I said, I spent some time in the UK while on an exchange with the good men of SAS. The average citizen there welcomes and accepts the government intrusions into their lives.


Well to be honest, my opinion has been in part formed from travelling a lot, seeing a lot of poverty and a lot of people without opportunity, and sadly, I'll include the US in that. There is nothing free about being stuck in a socio-economic group, and there's nothing free about having to die earlier because legislators decide that healthcare must be a user pays system. To me, owning a gun is small fry compared to how we really need look after our family.. by going to a good job and being fit enough to work.


Perhaps we are headed in this direction, then again perhaps we will not accept it. Who knows America is a unique place and the people are different and expect more freedom.


Freedom is a holistic expression, we may be more free in one way, but less in others. It all needs to be included.

I would trade gun ownership for a some education and good healthcare (one that doesn't bankrupt families). And it's not a choice between the two (it would be very possible to both have a nation into guns, and providing a base level of tertiary qualifications and health for all). But you're right.. that's me.

And in regards to cctv intrusion etc in the uk (and seemingly the US is doing that too now), I couldn't agree more. However that policy may more relate to landmass and subsequent ease of implementation, than the relinquishment of firearm rights. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway I thank you for your reasoned response. Very much so.


edit on 24-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spoogemonkey
 


"I'm in Australia (not the uk if you thought that.. I wasn't that clear), and to be frank, there have been no drawbacks."

there the million dollar fine for speaking out against the carbon tax there. if your citizens were armed they would be less likely to acquiesce to those fines. you kind of traded your opinions for carbon taxes.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree with you that Firing on Full Auto is STUPID and I have witnessed this Stupidity FIRST HAND. I have watched as various Untrained...Unskilled Stone Aged...Tribal individuals hold their AK's at their waist and attempt to target My Team.

They send a flurry of rounds that of which they are lucky if any come even NEAR to their targets as an AK will JUMP in the hands of anyone firing it on Full Auto. Add to this their poor skill of targeting as shooting from the hip has never been an accurate way to kill your enemy.

Even if they were to hold their weapons at Line of Sight...an AK on Full Auto will never settle back to target on Full Auto as it is hard enough to do this shooting just one round.

The newer Assault Rifles have been made much more difficult to convert to Full Auto but people will ALWAYS find a way. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree with you that Firing on Full Auto is STUPID and I have witnessed this Stupidity FIRST HAND. I have watched as various Untrained...Unskilled Stone Aged...Tribal individuals hold their AK's at their waist and attempt to target My Team.

They send a flurry of rounds that of which they are lucky if any come even NEAR to their targets as an AK will JUMP in the hands of anyone firing it on Full Auto. Add to this their poor skill of targeting as shooting from the hip has never been an accurate way to kill your enemy.

Even if they were to hold their weapons at Line of Sight...an AK on Full Auto will never settle back to target on Full Auto as it is hard enough to do this shooting just one round.

The newer Assault Rifles have been made much more difficult to convert to Full Auto but people will ALWAYS find a way. Split Infinity







They have your mind trained to fit inside a box it seems.
I call it the hunting gun disease. Well you dont need it to hunt so why do you need more then 5 rounds?



I understand full auto is useless but they want to think in terms of limitation so when they pass new laws it is easy for the sheep to digest.



I know a few hunters who say they would not care if they banned 30 round mags as long as they could still hunt.
Never getting the simple fact that the door is almost already closed. We will give up all our rights willingly.
edit on 24-11-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by lucifer6
 



My two cents on the subject... We have to outlaw big guns and accurate guns. The accuracy has to be regulated more than it already is. Here if you really wanted to kill somebody you cant use any of these weapons. Here is a nine millimeter. More upclose and personal.

If someone is going to kill somebody do you think what kind of gun they use is going to make any difference.


Are you American?

Where in the 2nd amendement (or anywhere in the constitution) did we grant the government the authority to regulate firearms? I didn't think so...

Why do YOU willing forfeit YOUR rights to an overbearing group of establishment LIARS? Don't you believe in free will and individual freedom??

edit on 21-11-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


I was misunderstood. The first sentence is the government and the second sentence is my argument.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join