Why they are coming for the guns

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

At least as much as I do, I'm sure!

I once got to shoot an entire belt of .50 cal out of a privately owned Brown M2. I can only imagine that this would be even more fun.

Even without ammo it'd be one hell of a conversation piece!!

a reply to: Snarl
Thank you, part of what you said I wanted to say, but, you said it better.
Who knows more about this than you, anyway?
I know you know, but most don't.

Thank you, Sir!

a reply to: slatesteam

Your obvious immutable position on the matter is the reason you ask that question.

Funnily enough, its the same question people from nations that don't have more guns than people ask.

Why? that is.

a reply to: network dude

I would not know im not in England. LoL

Now who's the idiot? x

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: butcherguy

The kid that died at a birthday party coz one of the adults in attendance that dropped a handgun to the floor and did not notice whilst playing cards at the party not that long ago illustrates that point rather well.

That was just tragic and complete and utterly preventable.

Agreed.
I never take guns to kids birthday parties.

Tells me you haven't found the right holster.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: slatesteam

Your obvious immutable position on the matter is the reason you ask that question.

Funnily enough, its the same question people from nations that don't have more guns than people ask.

Why? that is.

Because those countries would be taken over.

I don’t even love guns. I like the idea of people encouraging the infringement of the 2nd even less...

Maybe if UK had more we’d still be British?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Nobody's coming for anything, not with that 6-3 Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court case doesn't come until AFTER the bill becomes law and there are people with "standing". Maybe years later. A lot of damage can take place in between. Congress apparently does not have to have any bill pass a Constitutional litmus test before being voted on to become law.

Fortunately I live in a Second Amendment sanctuary county in a really gun friendly state. States CAN tell the feds to go *F* themselves.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Edumakated


Gun control is an attempt to regulate the more nasty firearms and who can wield them imho.

All guns are "nasty" to a person who gives good reason to be on the "nasty" end of it that spits out the projectile at high velocity. But to the person on the other end, well, not "nasty" at all. Matter of fact, that "nasty" thing just might have saved their life for them.

Having a gun is just like having a "catastrophic" health insurance policy that you hope you never have to use.

Yeah man, NASTY!!

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: AaarghZombies

No, it isn't semantics.

Just because a gun is black and looks like a military rifle does not make it a military rifle. The main difference between the two is that military has a selector switch for single, burst, auto fire while civilian is semi-auto only meaning single shot. The ammo is no different.

While there is certainly a lot of cosplay going on with gun owners, the guns are popular because of their modularity and it is a design that just works for a variety of uses.

It is no different than cars... putting a fart can exhaust and spoiler on a car doesn't make it a race car.

Again, the data does not support your assertion. Most mass shootings and gun crime is done with hand guns. Not rifles.

Banning AR style rifles does absolutely nothing to prevent gun violence.

Actually a lot of people overlook the REAL benefit of military style firearms. They were DESIGNED to work when your life is on the line and your life may depend on them working RIGHT NOW, this instant. With a hunting rifle, if you have a failure, oh well, you missed a shot at that deer. Better luck another day. But a "designed for military use" style rifle, being used in the manner for which it was designed, if you have a failure, you could be dead in pretty short order. So that is what I want in a firearm I buy. RELIABILITY and DURABILITY that I can trust my life on. Exacting accuracy is great but not the top priority. I'll take a rifle that can only shoot an 18 inch group at 100 yards any day of the week over any other rifle that might only fire or jam up half the time that you pull the trigger.

I'm not saying that hunting rifles are inherently unreliable, just that their design criteria doesn't include "absolutely MUST fire when needed". And it is a simple fact that the more precise and close tolerance you make a firearm, the less likely it is to be reliable when used in less than pristine environmental conditions. IMHO

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: slatesteam

Your obvious immutable position on the matter is the reason you ask that question.

Funnily enough, its the same question people from nations that don't have more guns than people ask.

Why? that is.

I hope it is not disturbing to you to learn that Americans, for the most part, really don't give a damn what other countries may think about us having our guns.

originally posted by: Rich Z
The Supreme Court case doesn't come until AFTER the bill becomes law and there are people with "standing". Maybe years later. A lot of damage can take place in between.

There are things called injunctions that can be granted by favorable courts, it isn't just 'questionable bill is signed into law and everyone just has to suck it'.

a reply to: slatesteam

Which countries would be taken over and by who?

Your maybe not old enough to remember what the likes of Thomas Hamilton did to a Dunblane Primary School near Stirling, the deadliest mass shooting in British history.

Or a nation coming to here senses and changing her gun laws.

As to being British, im Scottish before before anything else, but still consider myself a brit.

What makes you think the UK is not still British?

I think you may find that's still the case, even if it is divided via class war and politics.

a reply to: Rich Z

Seems to be disturbing you personally what others think all the same with that hair trigger response.

I don't care if it disturbs you so at least you learned that.

Nobody coming for your guns anyroad.

This is ATS son we have opinions, voice them, and debate the topic of the thread.

Now say something of interest or go back to being disturbed. x

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: AaarghZombies

No, it isn't semantics.

Just because a gun is black and looks like a military rifle does not make it a military rifle. The main difference between the two is that military has a selector switch for single, burst, auto fire while civilian is semi-auto only meaning single shot. The ammo is no different.

You've just said that there are no semantic and then used a semantic to support your argument. Thus proving what I said.

THIS is exactly what arguing over semantics means. Your saying that something doesn't exist based on you defining it one way and somebody else defining it another way.

When liberals say Assault Rifle they don't care what the exact specifications are. They mean a gun that's designed to emulate an M16 or similar weapon as closely as is legally allowed. These are the guns they want to stop, regardless of what you think is/isn't an assault rifle.

No hunter needs a magazine more than about 5 rounds, bump stocks have no real use in home defence, and grenade launchers are terrible for pest control. Even burst fire is largely unnecessary unless your competing in a burst fire based competition.

Give me a pump action 12 gauge, I will protect my family and my freedom with that.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: AaarghZombies

No, it isn't semantics.

Just because a gun is black and looks like a military rifle does not make it a military rifle. The main difference between the two is that military has a selector switch for single, burst, auto fire while civilian is semi-auto only meaning single shot. The ammo is no different.

You've just said that there are no semantic and then used a semantic to support your argument. Thus proving what I said.

THIS is exactly what arguing over semantics means. Your saying that something doesn't exist based on you defining it one way and somebody else defining it another way.

When liberals say Assault Rifle they don't care what the exact specifications are. They mean a gun that's designed to emulate an M16 or similar weapon as closely as is legally allowed. These are the guns they want to stop, regardless of what you think is/isn't an assault rifle.

No hunter needs a magazine more than about 5 rounds, bump stocks have no real use in home defence, and grenade launchers are terrible for pest control. Even burst fire is largely unnecessary unless your competing in a burst fire based competition.

Give me a pump action 12 gauge, I will protect my family and my freedom with that.

You one of "them" that believes AR stands for Assault Rifle , aren't you ?
(Shhh , It is the DOW trading symbol for Armalite)

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Sometimes it is easy as pie

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: butcherguy

Would you shoot a bigfoot in self defense?

In self defense, I would shoot a Bigfoot as many times as needed to remove the threat.

a reply to: butcherguy

Hell, I'd shoot it proactively so I could be the first person on my block with a confirmed Bigfoot kill. With all the violent and provocative stories I hear about them they should be more careful about prowling in populated areas.

Was shot at many times during two tours over there. Took a few rounds too. Have five holes to prove it. So they gave me 2 of them 'dangly purple thingies' and some 'dangly star thingies' along with pretty colored ribbons and other trinkets.

Learned this: the very first time you kill a man, there are two casualties. The life you took, and also the death of the innocent person that you used to be. Every kill after that gets easier. Then one day it doesn't bother you at all. You will live with this forever. If you can.

Usually, but not always, if you heard the shot, you probably weren't the target.

Prepare for the storm. It is coming.

i think its a joke if the democrats think guns are a problem in case of a Revolution.

Anyone living in a big city needs to see where there power and water comes from.

Los Angeles calif has only 4 main aqueduct lines feeding it and about 12 main electrical grid lines.

How many troops would you need to guard 10.000+ miles of power lines and 1500+ miles of water aqueducts.

To really guard the pipes ans power lines will take 25,000 to35000 troops.

And that is JUST ONE CITY.

These are all unguarded and open to being taken out with a small team of people.

In Calif the big cities are democrat strongholds and the rural areas are GOP strongholds.

And you think Texas has water and power problems.

Where are they going to get troops to go from door to door taking guns.

Revolutions are easy and few guns are needed.

NRA propaganda still succeeding in driving gun sales I see.

Baa.