Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I actually need a powerful gun TO LIVE, everyday folks

page: 11
32
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Me personally have the skills to at the very least take out 4 dudes with one Tomahawk then throw one in a guy coming at me and then the other for more dudes. never mind my 12 ga slug gun and my eagle on hip. Or for that fact my Trench Knife WW1.
Now I have Bears and wild beasts here also and my 12 ga slug gun does pretty well. 2-3 slugs and anything goes down.
Now that is up front personal .
Now if I guy like me wanted to take out a school class room, who would need a gun?
Assualt rifles are good for killing quickly and without to much concern for grossness of killing.
Me well I will only defend myself or another in an attack.
I'd Love to be a school guard and kill a bastard who would try and kill a kid.
Man Oh man my tomahawk would find a great resting place.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RevRay
 


No offense, but are those four guys armed? If they are, I doubt your Tomahawk would be of much use. There's a reason that the Native Americans started using guns.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
When I lived in northern PA in a small town, most residents owned guns. Many guys owned many guns. Sometimes 5 or 7 or even more. Illegal guns, high powered crossbows, you name it. And although there were plenty of wild animals, no one had to kill packs of angered wolves, or bears on the porch. OP exaggerates greatly. Usually the guns were used to shoot groundhogs in the neighboring farm, or shoot cans from a fence. The idea that you need assault weapons to defends yourself from wild animals is ludicrous.

Look, I'm all for your right to own a gun. Don't act as if you'll die without them though. Or that a pack of wolves will be on your porch eating your slaughtered cow. Almost every guy I knew in this town who owned all those guns.. it was for bragging rights. Nothing more. Almost everyone went deer hunting. Considering you could only tag 1 or 2, you hardly needed a collection of 8 guns to accomplish this.

If you are going to make arguments for gun ownership, make them sensible at least.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



Just the assault rifles
Do you even KNOW what an assult weapon is? Do some research bubb! You might learn something.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


So, that's probably the case in PA. I don't think the Op has mentioned where she lived, however, if she lives in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, ect, the circumstances are much different.

As far as needing several guns, that's all relative. Does a person really need more than 1 or 2 cars? Probably not, but many people, my parents encluded have several. Those people are called enthusiasts. My dad has 9 vehicles, 2 modern daily drivers, 2 classics, 4 trucks for different reasons i.e. car hauler, dump truck, and 1 Harley. What's the difference. Some people collect different things. They don't always need the things they collect, it's just a hobby.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
reply to post by bknapple32
 



Just the assault rifles
Do you even KNOW what an assult weapon is? Do some research bubb! You might learn something.



More assumptions from people who don't know me bubb. I'm a gun owner and despite what you think. These ar15s are considered assault rifles now even though they are technically semi auto. The vernacular has changed.


Or should I just research and learn stuff about guns I own
edit on 21-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RevRay
 


Cool story bro.

By "tomahawk", I assume that you mean "tomahawk missile", right ?
Internet Rambos... You know they've never been near the real thing.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


Pretty sure he meant an actual Tomahawk, like the kind the Natives used. Also, I bet he thinks he could stop bullets with it.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 1YellowRose
 


firecrackers? im sure that would work



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Yeah, I know. He probably thinks he'll get slow motion and music too, instead of bust eardrums and the smell of loose bowels. Anyone talking about a fight in other terms than "the most frightening thing that has ever happened to me" has never been in one.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Matteredminds
 


Firecrackers work VERY well, and they don't get whatever you throw them at annoyed by off-center bullet wounds. Most animals actually take off when they hear/smell the hissing of the fuse. The bang only serves to speed them up.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 1YellowRose
 


The real question is, what should we arm the Grizzly bear with to protect it from you. The Grizzly is just living its life and trying to survive, if you are in its territory then you either should move or get used to him coming over to see you.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by reaganero
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Why should the government get to tell me what a firearm is? I think bazookas and grenade launchers are firearms too.


Again, obvious straw man. The vast majority of people don't want to own such weapons and I think the difference between a semiautomatic rifle and a bomb should be obvious. Bombs are designed specifically for indiscriminate killing.


Let's not try mediocre logic. If you think you can point out a fallacy by ignoring a connection that's fine but the truth is that the government has drawn a line for what people can have and you seem to be fine with those lines correct? You seem to understand the absurdity. Yet you can't do the same with other weapons that are designed for war. It's all just a label. The "bullets" determine the category. What size bullet is acceptable to you? Can those bullets explode? How big of an explosion? It's all about agreeing on where the line should be drawn.

Personally if you like machine guns join the military.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Bombs are ordinance, not firearms. But, I can understand the confusion.

Also, Machine guns are inaccurate, and a waste of ammunition. The fire rate of your standard M-16 is 850 rounds per minute. A liberal figure, for one the common magazine capacity is 30. it's gonna take around 3 seconds to reload for most people familiar with the gun, and you'll have to reload 28 times in that minute just your 28 reloads will take quite a bit longer than a minute.

Machine guns aren't the "efficient killing machines" that people think they are. A standard Machine gun in the Military is the common heavy machine gun, it's a mounted weapon, too heavy to carry on your own. The ammo chain usually contains 100 rounds, after firing 200 rounds sustained fire, it is recommended that you change the barrel. Because a hot barrel can cause a variety of severe problems.

But, Machine guns aren't exactly illegal either, you can even legally own them in California.

As far as "designed for military use" that's a silly statement, most guns were designed for military use. Here are some common ones: Enfield .303, Springfield 03, Colt 1911, Beretta 9mm, Colt army and navy revolver, Winchester 1894. That's two common pistols, a lever action rifle, and two bolt action rifles. Want to know what weapon wasn't designed for Military use? AR-15, the civilian semi-auto version of the M-16. In fact, the AR-15 started out, as the M-16, and was redesigned for civilian use and dubbed the AR-15, by the way, the AR does not stand for "assault rifle", that's a common misconception, what does AR mean? It's an abbreviation for Armalite, the company that first produced it.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



These ar15s are considered assault rifles.
By who? And why do you consider it an assault rifle? Maybe because it looks all big/bad/and dangerous?

I have a Browning’s 12gag pump. And all you have to do it point and shoot. No accuracy involved whatsoever! And I can guarantee I will produce more damage from it than one of those big/bad/and dangerous looking (so called) assault rifles...

edit on 22-1-2013 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by reaganero
 



Let's not try mediocre logic. If you think you can point out a fallacy by ignoring a connection that's fine but the truth is that the government has drawn a line for what people can have and you seem to be fine with those lines correct? You seem to understand the absurdity. Yet you can't do the same with other weapons that are designed for war. It's all just a label. The "bullets" determine the category. What size bullet is acceptable to you? Can those bullets explode? How big of an explosion? It's all about agreeing on where the line should be drawn. Personally if you like machine guns join the military.

the second amendment draws the line in general, if the government had it's way there would be no line. i can't use a rocket launcher for personal defense without taking out a large portion of my house and potentially killing several people, nor can grenades be used in such a fashion; which is why there is no practical reason for people to have them.

can you point out where military grade weapons, rockets, grenades, explosive ammunition, or large caliber weapons were used by a civilian in a mass shooting? why would someone get armor piercing rounds if they wanted to attack civilians? "armor piercing" is a scare word, used to induce an emotional state that suspends reason in an attempt to force an agenda.

what keeps the government in line? fear. "people shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people"

personally i'm semi-ok with how things are now, but i think concealed carry shouldn't require a permit and taxes should be removed from class 3 weapons. criminals obviously don't apply for concealed carry permits, it only hampers law abiding citizens from carrying them and a tax on class 3 weapons is an attempt to make them less accessible while making a profit.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 1YellowRose
 


Its called a shotgun...

"Shotguns, saving frontiersman since the 18th century"

You people are making ATS a miserable place to come, I thought it couldn't get worse then election season.....oh was I wrong....



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   



[align=center][color=D462FF]IF GOD CAN BRING ME TO IT,
HE CAN BRING ME THROUGH IT.
[/align]
edit on 26-2-2013 by 1YellowRose because: (no reason given)
edit on 26/2/13 by davespanners because: edited in an if



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



More assumptions from people who don't know me bubb. I'm a gun owner and despite what you think. These ar15s are considered assault rifles now even though they are technically semi auto. The vernacular has changed. Or should I just research and learn stuff about guns I own

being a gun owner doesn't give any of your statements any more credence.


this video pretty much sums it up, especially the DHS statement: "a rifle chambered in 5.56 nato with a 30 round clip is ideal for personal defence"



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by 1YellowRose
 


why do you have to kill sentient creatures - it is disgusting and evil.
Why not just scare them away and lock your meat up properly.
I hate this ' lets kill anything that moves ' mentality.


Well, to obtain vitamin B12, for one.






top topics



 
32
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join