'1776 Will Commence Again If You Try To Take Our Firearms'...

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Thinking you may be able to protect yourself from any of the above if they really did happen = priceless

You yanks make me laugh!!! oh god, I'm crying!!!

edit on 8-1-2013 by CaptainBeno because: nevermind I'll get in trouble

en.wikipedia.org...
You clearly know nothing....

reply to post by Superhans


Again.............Herding Cats.

Cheers Ted Thanks for you're contribution on gun knowledge. If you were on my team at the pub we would win the meat raffle every time.

However, I think what we are getting at here is the need for weapons that fire loads of bullets in short succession. Repeatedly. In the hands of a complete idiot (me for instance) I could kill loads of ya, however I would need to be a resonably good shot if I were to come a you all in a group with a hand gun (whilst your all running around.

Get it?

So to recap, that's loads of bullets spraying everywhere vs single repeated shots from a hand gun or riffle.

Easy

reply to post by CaptainBeno



Semiautomatic rifles, like the Bushmaster .223 that was not used, fire one round per pull of the trigger, just like a semiautomatic pistol like a Glock or 1911, or single shot shotgun. The difference is the reloading. My little brother hunts ducks with a semiautomatic mossberg shotgun. Same principle.

My AK makes a fine deer rifle when I pull my 5 rd magazines out of the closet. It is a tool, an inanimate object that cannot be blamed for the actions of the operator anymore than you can blame the car for the crowd of kids the drunken driver plowed into. That's what you people don't get.

HAMMERS killed more people than firearms did in 2011.

like I said..

brickwall!

Tell me,

What guns do you think should be allowed in common suburban homes?

reply to post by netwarrior


To be honest, I have no idea why I'm even bothering to argue with you guys.

The law will pass.

You will fight it, but lose (as it will be law and you be be unlawful by keeping your guns)

You will eventually give them up to be melted into candle holders.

I will sit back from my keyboard, feet up on the table and raise a glass to you all.

It will change, it's only a matter of time and there aint nothing you can do about it. Nothing.

See ya on the other side.

We can romantisise about the good'ol days.

"Ah do you remember those days when we used to protect ourselves with Millitary grade weapons"

Still crying. So funny

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
AJ should have been more composed during his debate with PM. I would have rather seen the retired Marine who wrote the letter to Feinstein argue the with Morgan.

Jesus, you people need to stop with this debate crap. These segments are not debates. They are propaganda. How can anyone have a 'proper debate' if one person controls the questions, moderates, controls the 'pop-up' infographics and has general sway over the message?

Jones was speaking to Morgan, to CNN, to those behind them. He wasn't there to convince some hippy, prius driving, liberal to go out and buy a gun. The 2nd amendment isn't up for debate. I applaud him and I'm not wringing my hands that the red coats might come.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by ibiubu

 

If someone walked into a school with a 9mm pistol, they might kill/injure 1 or 2 people before they are contained.

Someone walks into a school with a bushmaster rifle, we have a crap load of crying parents.

Sorry, but that's just not true. The Virginia Tech shooter used a 9mm handgun, and .22 caliber handgun and killed 32 people and injured 17 others. So what's the point in going after 'assault rifles' if you aren't also going to go after the just-as dangerous handguns? And the small-caliber rifles that are used for 'varmint hunting'? The gun ban mentality cannot stop...all guns have the capacity to kill, so if you feel that it's necessary to ban rifles, you will eventually feel it is necessary to ban the rest of them. That mentality is simply not acceptable due to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to own firearms but does not guarantee safety.

It may seem backwards but that's the way America was designed, and it should be the way America stays. Unless of course, the anti-gun states want to secede from America? I wouldn't stop them any faster than stopping the conservative states from seceding, but that's just my opinion and totally off-topic.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Any piece of equipment currently in use by infantry. That is the initial purpose of the armed citizenry under USC 10:311. The authors of the BOR had some interesting things to say about the armed citizen. I suggest you read them. It would solve alot of arguments about this entire issue if people went to the source.


That being said, while I would *love* to have a crate of Russian RPGs (Blowing up junked cars would rock) I can kind of see your point there. I would support a pretty thorough background check for anti-armor/personnel weapons of that nature.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


I think you'll find that Americans won't roll over as quickly as Australia did. In a hundred years you could not get rid of even a sizeable percentage of the firearms now going into deep storage. Guess what happened when they banned "assault weapons" in California? MASSIVE noncompliance.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
AJ should have been more composed during his debate with PM. I would have rather seen the retired Marine who wrote the letter to Feinstein argue the with Morgan.

Jesus, you people need to stop with this debate crap. These segments are not debates. They are propaganda. How can anyone have a 'proper debate' if one person controls the questions, moderates, controls the 'pop-up' infographics and has general sway over the message?

Jones was speaking to Morgan, to CNN, to those behind them. He wasn't there to convince some hippy, prius driving, liberal to go out and buy a gun. The 2nd amendment isn't up for debate. I applaud him and I'm not wringing my hands that the red coats might come.

Quoted for prosperity...
CNN could have had spokes people from the NRA, bushmaster and Remington on the show to talk about gun control but they didn't. They picked a conspiracy loon that is laughed at even within the conspiracy circles.
Why do you think they did this? To make everyone who likes guns to look like some whack job.

Originally posted by Superhans
Why do you think they did this? To make everyone who likes guns to look like some whack job.

They did it because Alex Jones promoted the petition to deport Pierce Morgan. Yes, they have an agenda and I fail to see why you should be worried. Despite who they have on they will still promote the agenda and shape opinion to that point of view. Alex at least communicated about 10 minutes of information that none of those people have ever heard or will ever hear from CNN again. He didn't lose any supporters. He might have made someone in that audience think (but I doubt they are capable).

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
like I said..

brickwall!

Tell me,

What guns do you think should be allowed in common suburban homes?

no no no, you are dodging the issue.
I clearly asked for a definition of "military grade" yet none can be given.

Originally posted by Superhans
no no no, you are dodging the issue.
I clearly asked for a definition of "military grade" yet none can be given.

In order for hundreds of millions of people to remain free they must be able to defeat those that would impose tyranny against them no matter how many isolated incidences of violence arise. Evil people exist, better that they been taken care of one by one than given a uniform, authority and weapons to use against a defenseless people.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by Superhans
Why do you think they did this? To make everyone who likes guns to look like some whack job.

Yes, they have an agenda and I fail to see why you should be worried.

Because as crazy as it sounds, they have persecuted people for the mere leanings towards a political affiliation.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Superhans

 

Again.............Herding Cats.

Cheers Ted

Thanks for you're contribution on gun knowledge. If you were on my team at the pub we would win the meat raffle every time.

However, I think what we are getting at here is the need for weapons that fire loads of bullets in short succession. Repeatedly. In the hands of a complete idiot (me for instance) I could kill loads of ya, however I would need to be a resonably good shot if I were to come a you all in a group with a hand gun (whilst your all running around.

Get it?

So to recap, that's loads of bullets spraying everywhere vs single repeated shots from a hand gun or riffle.

Easy

Your either simple, silly, or slow I am not sure which one? Or willfully ignorant with an agenda. The guns you keep referencing that "spray" bullets everywhere in bursts of gun fire is no where near what has been used in any of the shootings in question. The guns you describe are yes in layman's terms a military gun a full automatic rifle, the ones we are bitching about being taken away are the little brother to those guns, you have to pull the trigger every time you want to fire off a shot. Big, big difference between the two. And as it currently stands the average Joe cannot just go to the gun store and purchase a full auto like the military. Please educate yourself before you just parrot what you hear others say, because it makes you sound like a fool. And most of these weapons that people consider military style are just a regular hunting rifle with plastic dress up parts, some functional others just for cosmetics. It's kinda like painting racing stripes on a car and thinking that makes it a sports car with amazing speed when in fact it's a 3 cylinder 98 hp Ford festiva.
Now does something need to be done to restrict firearms falling in the hands of the untrained or mentally deficient. yes indeed, perhaps a better background check for mental instability and a required gun safety course as is needed in order to obtain a hunting permit. I am sure the legal gun owners would be fine with that and better enforcement of current laws already in place without the need to pass even more just to confuse what is legal and what is not because there is a lot of grey area in the topic of guns in this country. One example would be the use of a froward grip on a rifle. It's function is to maintain control of the gun lawmakers consider it an evil feature but is better control of the firearm not smart? Kinda like the difference between using a steering wheel on a car or steering levers like you would see on a commercial riding lawn mower. One offers better control in a different application.

Americans:



Scared of your own shadows.

reply to post by ararisq


I agree! I thought Jones was amazing and I was never a fan. He came out no holds barred doing to Pierce exactly what Pierce does to other guests.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Scared of your own shadows.

Not like hundreds of millions have been murdered by government.

-- IN MY LIFETIME --

So call me paranoid but when the government talks about what they want to do FOR ME - especially when those same people praise Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin - I get a bit suspicious. You do know those three men were responsible for millions of horrific murders right?

Perhaps I should say "You do understand?" - just imagine that in a calm Pierce Morgan British accent. You do understand that governments have killed their own citizens, normal everyday people in the name of expediency, in the name of finance, in the name of control? You do understand, right?

Seriously, the only reason this is a 'debate' is because a whole mess of you failed Modern History.

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Superhans

 

Again.............Herding Cats.

Cheers Ted

Thanks for you're contribution on gun knowledge. If you were on my team at the pub we would win the meat raffle every time.

However, I think what we are getting at here is the need for weapons that fire loads of bullets in short succession. Repeatedly. In the hands of a complete idiot (me for instance) I could kill loads of ya, however I would need to be a resonably good shot if I were to come a you all in a group with a hand gun (whilst your all running around.

Get it?

So to recap, that's loads of bullets spraying everywhere vs single repeated shots from a hand gun or riffle.

Easy

Your either simple, silly, or slow I am not sure which one? Or willfully ignorant with an agenda. The guns you keep referencing that "spray" bullets everywhere in bursts of gun fire is no where near what has been used in any of the shootings in question. The guns you describe are yes in layman's terms a military gun a full automatic rifle, the ones we are bitching about being taken away are the little brother to those guns, you have to pull the trigger every time you want to fire off a shot. Big, big difference between the two. And as it currently stands the average Joe cannot just go to the gun store and purchase a full auto like the military. Please educate yourself before you just parrot what you hear others say, because it makes you sound like a fool. And most of these weapons that people consider military style are just a regular hunting rifle with plastic dress up parts, some functional others just for cosmetics. It's kinda like painting racing stripes on a car and thinking that makes it a sports car with amazing speed when in fact it's a 3 cylinder 98 hp Ford festiva.
Now does something need to be done to restrict firearms falling in the hands of the untrained or mentally deficient. yes indeed, perhaps a better background check for mental instability and a required gun safety course as is needed in order to obtain a hunting permit. I am sure the legal gun owners would be fine with that and better enforcement of current laws already in place without the need to pass even more just to confuse what is legal and what is not because there is a lot of grey area in the topic of guns in this country. One example would be the use of a froward grip on a rifle. It's function is to maintain control of the gun lawmakers consider it an evil feature but is better control of the firearm not smart? Kinda like the difference between using a steering wheel on a car or steering levers like you would see on a commercial riding lawn mower. One offers better control in a different application.

OMG SENSE!!!!
the problem is when people talk about gun control one of the first things they do is cast a broad generalization and a false division. Like everyone "who like guns thinks that every American should be able to walk into a gas station and purchase an UZI or a minigun". Nevermind the fact that a typical UZI will warp horribly after one clip or a minigun costs thousands of dollars to fire more than a few seconds....
The best example i can think of is gun laws gone stupid wrong are with me. I shoot for accuracy, im not talking 50-100 yards. I shoot for 500 yards plus with one mile being my ultimate goal. Now i make no illusions, my rifles are for sport only, they are not for personal defense or home defense. For that i keep a .357 in a lock box under my bed and it is loaded with blanks. If someone breaks in and hears 4 shots of that with the powder spraying on them then they can go ahead and have my TV.
With that in mind, i can't have a night vision scope even though it gets dark around 3:00 and i can't have a silencer even though shooting ranges get shut down over noise complaints. But nobody can point out to me the most horrible shooting tragedy ever that NEVER occurred using a NV scope and a silencer.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


I don't believe in guns and have none. I do believe in rights.