[clancy98]

Are you on crank or anabolic steroids? That might explain your wild lashing out at friend and foe alike! You are frankly not qualified to comment on my state of enlightenment anyways.

Right now, I'd like to break my foot off in your a$$ for lacking the common sense to follow your own advice, presumably intended for fluff!

you, me, fluff and everyone else obviously know who that was directed to, else you wouldn't have mentioned that it was to the wrong person. I refuse to spell everything out like a phonics workbook.

and you will do no such thing, mr internet tough guy.

because of MY 2nd amendment rights, you'll never make it to within a legs distance.

 

[clancy98]

Actually, it is not. Why do all gun crazy american's think this?

The right to bear arms to overthrow the government if what is in the constitution....In case the states were not too fond of the Union afterwards. It was another check and balance for the colonies.

No where does it guarantee you the right to use an anti-material sniper rifle (and that is what this is intended for...think engine blocks on moving vehicles)

I think it would fall neatly into the category of "arms" dont you?

and why is everyone with a gun a "gun crazy american"? Because you have clearly made up your mind on anyone that owns one.

 

[punkassean]

I case anyone hasn't noticed our govt. is treading mighty close to tyranny these days, hell I might have get me a .50 cal JIC

Seriously though...

 

[syadasti]

I case anyone hasn't noticed our govt. is treading mighty close to tyranny these days, hell I might have get me a .50 cal JIC

Seriously though...

Oh yeah man cause a 50 caliber rifle is so useful to the average american. I won't be able to feed my kids without one...

 

[punkassean]

"Seriously though" about the tyranny, not the .50 cal... sheesh, I don't even own any guns mang.

But if I wanted one for the hell of it, why not? Who needs an H2???

 

[syadasti]

"Seriously though" about the tyranny, not the .50 cal... sheesh, I don't even own any guns mang.

But if I wanted one for the hell of it, why not? Who needs an H2???

Yes and as everyone said, if I wanted a M1 tank or nuclear weapon - why not? Its because you don't need one for any valid reason and people are too irresponsible to have dangerous weapons which serve no purpose but to kill people. The average American can't even eat a proper diet and you think they should have high powered weapons?

Hummers aren't designed to kill people and since the real hummer wasn't practical for civilians, most people buy the fake H2 model...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

"Seriously though" about the tyranny, not the .50 cal... sheesh, I don't even own any guns mang.

But if I wanted one for the hell of it, why not? Who needs an H2???

an h2 and a 0.50 cal are 2 very different things.

in your school of thought then... do you think you have the right to own any "arm" in the market??

where do you draw the line? if any?

 

[punkassean]

The "fake" H2 is nearly as impractical as the original. In fact the "fake" H2 is based off of a Chevy HD2500 which is actually a burly purposeful 3/4 ton truck. People have this idea that H2's are not a real truck. Fact is they are a real truck drivetrain with a silly looking body slapped on it to satisfy people who want the Hummer look. The H1 was equally inefficient it just had better ground clearance (in a nutshell)

Point is, we all have a lot of things we don't need and that is what makes America so great. If you can be responsible, you can do just about whatever you want. Well at least you used to be able to...

 

[punkassean]

Alexis, somewhere around ICBM's I guess ...

Really though I don't own guns but in this case I am simply advocating responsibility. I am sick of people being told they can't do or own something that they enjoy because someone else deems it dangerous or destructive or because some fool used a similar item to cause people harm. Dog's can be trained to kill people but in the right hands they are also your best friend...

 

[clancy98]

I am simply advocating responsibility. I am sick of people being told they can't do or own something that they enjoy because someone else deems it dangerous or destructive or because some fool used a similar item to cause people harm.

woohoo, someone who gets it!

 

[syadasti]

I am sick of people being told they can't do or own something that they enjoy because someone else deems it dangerous or destructive or because some fool used a similar item to cause people harm. Dog's can be trained to kill people but in the right hands they are also your best friend...

Yes but your H2, dog, etc aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing people. People aren't going to magically become responsible or take and absorb the necessary training to operate dangerous weapons. Most people are functional on the level of an 8th grader. Would you give an 8th grader a 50 caliber rifle to play around with - no...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Point is, we all have a lot of things we don't need and that is what makes America so great.

now, that didnt make any sense.

but anyway,
do you think you should have the right to own any "arm" you want??

is the government taking away your rights by not letting you own cruise missiles... "just for the sake of it"???

why dont you talk about those "rights to own arms" taken by the gvmt when we talk about owning tanks, or missiles, and you make a big deal when we talk about semi-autos??? even when both can be owned "for the sake of it".???

 

[Btyler311]

Come on isn't it obvious? The reason these guns are getting banned is because they are good at taking out one target from a very long ways away. Read that as they are good at removing unpopular political personages from well outside of Secret Service's protective circle.

Hmmm... What state can I still get one of those in?

Ty

 

[punkassean]

Alexis, read my above post...

I agree with your signature, I like your reasoning but I also like true freedom. Not the right wing BS version of freedom.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis, somewhere around ICBM's I guess ...

Really though I don't own guns but in this case I am simply advocating responsibility. I am sick of people being told they can't do or own something that they enjoy because someone else deems it dangerous or destructive or because some fool used a similar item to cause people harm. Dog's can be trained to kill people but in the right hands they are also your best friend...

yup, but you advocating responsability from mankind!!!
in the words of einstein, weapon giants, children of mind.

why then, you draw the line at a 60 million bucks ICBM???? after all, if you believe people is responsible enough, there should no be problem at all in owning a icbm bought at christie`s in the hands of a "collector".

and why if you think is ok to own "arm" for those humans protected by the US constitution... is not OK for other human beings, specifically north koreans, to own nukes or any other kind of weapon of mass destruction???

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis, read my above post...

I agree with your signature, I like your reasoning but I also like true freedom. Not the right wing BS version of freedom.

true freedom doesnt exists. freedom is restricted by the boundaries of the freedom of others.

in this case is the fear of others, who choose not to own guns, that you might use your freedom to carry any arm to harm them.

you talk about freedom, but your freedom to own guns interferes with the freedom of others who might choose to live gun-free lives, and without the risks it implies to have guns at home with kids, or etc, etc.... dont ya think???

 

[punkassean]

I don't own guns and knowing that people around me do doesn't scare me. I'm scared of harmful people, w/o them the gun hurts no one...

My freedom is not threatened by responsible gun owners.

 

[syadasti]

I don't own guns and knowing that people around me do doesn't scare me. I'm scared of harmful people, w/o them the gun hurts no one...

My freedom is not threatened by responsible gun owners.

Most people aren't responsible so they can't own guns. Responsible people can snap and go on a killing spree (example - Texas Tower Shooting).

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I don't own guns and knowing that people around me do doesn't scare me. I'm scared of harmful people, w/o them the gun hurts no one...

My freedom is not threatened by responsible gun owners.

how do you know everyone who will have a gun is gonna be a "responsible gun owner".

would you be willing to bet on that?? isnt every single person at some point a "responsible gun owner"???

do you assume your POV is the only one?. what if I´m scared of being surrounded bt gunlovers. do my rights count? how do you make the distinction between harmful people to responsible gun owners?.

why does society have to take the risk for the pleasure of a few gun owners who want guns available. at the obvious risk of this guns falling in the wrong hands at some point??

 

[punkassean]

No one can guarantee that a person will always be responsible, you qualify a person, how potentially dangerous the thing they wish to own will dictate how much qualification they need to own it. after that if something bad happens that person is ultimately responsible, not the means he used to enact the harm. People run people over with cars, slit necks with kitchen knives and even strangle with their bare hands...

Killing isn't hard w/or w/o a gun. The fact still remains that guns don't kill people, people kill people and criminals inherently don't abide by laws otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. Therefore gun laws don't really protect anyone but they do deprive people of their hobby or even passion.

I don't really think people should own ICBM's and a .50 cal is really pushing it but if I lived on a ton of land in the middle of nowhere and was filthy stinkin' rich I might just want to own a .50 cal simply to blow up junked VW's from a mile away. And you know what, who does it hurt???

 

[syadasti]

Killing isn't hard w/or w/o a gun. The fact still remains that guns don't kill people, people kill people and criminals inherently don't abide by laws otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. Therefore gun laws don't really protect anyone but they do deprive people of their hobby or even passion.

Using a weapon designed for killing allows you to do so at a much faster rate and if thats its designed purpose there is no reason to own one unless you need to kill people (military/law enforcement). Gun control restricts manufacture and trade of these items so they are harder for the criminal to obtain and most criminals aren't the brightest bulbs around so anything you can do to make it harder is a good thing and will lower risks involved with such weapons...

 

[punkassean]

this is getting ridiculous...

 

[clancy98]

yeah, anything you can do to keep criminals from legally obtaining guns. ???

 

[syadasti]

yeah, anything you can do to keep criminals from legally obtaining guns. ???

When a gun is banned from civilian use the company will only be making them for non-civilian use so the number of guns on the available through any channel (illegal or not) will be lower than if the company was making the gun for both civilian and non-civilian use. They will be harder to get and crimes committed with the gun in question will go down, end of story...

 

[punkassean]

So they can't get the gun anymore but they can still get a UHaul full of fertilizer that's 100X as dangerous and way less conspicuous??? There is always a means to an end.

I'm done with this...

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

When a gun is banned from civilian use the company will only be making them for law enforcement/military use so the number of guns on the available through any channel (illegal or not) will be lower - they will be harder to get, end of story...

I thought the discussion was how to get guns out of criminal hands, not insure they are the only ones armed.

 

[syadasti]

So they can't get the gun anymore but they can still get a UHaul full of fertilizer that's 100X as dangerous and way less conspicuous??? There is always a means to an end.

I'm done with this...

Which requires knowledge and training vs. a premade easy to use weapon - it will be harder to kill people and homicide will not occur as often...

The people are safer when they are banned. Nobody is claiming banning guns will eliminate all crimes (with or without guns) but it will reduce it.

 

[punkassean]

okay cool, show me your statistics showing that people are in fact safer when guns are banned.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot I'm done with this silly argument

 

[punkassean]

Making a fertilizer bomb requires about as much "knowledge and training" and wiping your ass...

Okay for real that's it I'm done...

 

[MikeD]

All the wacko conservatives are against the living tree apprach, because they know common sense will prevail in the end.

What's funny is that he says "all we have are the words of the founders, and we shouldn't think outside of what those words meant to them..." then he proceeds to look at context to make his own interpretation of what those words meant to the authors of the constitution. It's always going to be a living document, because it's only in the interaction of the words and the modern mind that the document exists...he can argue rhetoric all day, and in the end, even the textualists are interpreting the document, regardless of what they say.

MD

 

[llkoolkeg]

"Quote:Originally Posted by llkoolkeg
We will never all agree on that, unfortunately. The larger 2nd amendment debate was meanwhile busily chasing its tail just like the various pot threads.

HOLY ****! I can't believe we didn't all realize this! you are so enlightened, thanks so much.

As for my knowledge about the UK, you're right. I have no motivation whatsoever to know anything about you or your place of origin. Fortunately, I see that as a reason to keep my giant mouth shut when people are talking about something I dont know anything about. But obviously its different for you?

You're flaming the wrong person...

you, me, fluff and everyone else obviously know who that was directed to, else you wouldn't have mentioned that it was to the wrong person. I refuse to spell everything out like a phonics workbook.

and you will do no such thing, mr internet tough guy.

because of MY 2nd amendment rights, you'll never make it to within a legs distance.

You responded to MY post and MY name was the one impugned in your unfocused tirade. Again, how do you presume to know what I think? Omniscient, are we? Perhaps in the future, saying aloud to yourself what you intend to post before doing so would help; you'd certainly piss off fewer teammates!

[Aside]Why is it so damn hard for some people to admit they fvcked up?

I am no different in person than I am on the internet- love me/hate me...I couldn't care less.

I am curious though- why do you choose to pick fights with Lifetime NRA Members who have been shooting for over 25 years with arsenals that, in all probability, exceed your own?

 

[Skookum]

Making a fertilizer bomb requires about as much "knowledge and training" and wiping your ass...

Okay for real that's it I'm done...

Come on just "one more post"

You know you wanna.
neaky: :devil:

 

[MikeD]

Come on just "one more post"

You know you wanna.
neaky: :devil:

He's bound to be too busy mugging someone with a fertilizer bomb...

 

[punkassean]

Blah


Does that count Skook?

 

[PonySoldier]

Study cites lack of quality gun-control research data
Professor: Data "too weak to support strong conclusions"

By Randolph E. Schmid
The Associated Press

Washington - A new analysis of efforts to control violence by restricting guns says there is not enough evidence to reach valid conclusions about their effectiveness.
The National Research Council said Thursday that a major research program on firearms is needed.
"Policy questions related to gun ownership and proposals for gun control touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics," Charles Wellford, chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
Among the major questions needing answers are whether there should be restrictions on who may possess firearms, on the number or types of guns that can be purchased and whether safety locks should be required, said Wellford, professor of criminal justice at the University of Maryland.
"These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," he said. "The available data are too weak to support strong conclusions."
Thirty-four states have "right to carry" laws that allow certain adults to carry concealed weapons. However, the report found no credible evidence that such laws either decrease or increase violent crime.
Citing another example, the report said there is almost no evidence that programs aimed at steering children away from guns have had any effect on their behavior, knowledge or attitudes toward firearms.
The report does not address gun policy, only the quality of available research data on firearm violence, control and prevention efforts.
Many studies linking guns to suicide and criminal violence produce conflicting conclusions, have statistical flaws and often do not show whether gun ownership results in certain outcomes, the report said.
A serious limit in such analyses is the lack of good data on who owns firearms and on individual encounters with violence, according to the study.
Research scientists need appropriate access to federal and state data on gun use, manufacturing and sales, the study urged.
There have been mixed and often divergent findings about whether owning firearms helps deter criminals.
The report noted that many schools have programs intended to prevent gun violence. But, it added, some studies suggest that children's curiosity and teenagers' attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects increase the appeal of guns.
Few of these programs, the report concludes, have been adequately evaluated.

The study was conducted by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Science

 

[Silver]

What's funny is that he says "all we have are the words of the founders, and we shouldn't think outside of what those words meant to them..." then he proceeds to look at context to make his own interpretation of what those words meant to the authors of the constitution. It's always going to be a living document, because it's only in the interaction of the words and the modern mind that the document exists...he can argue rhetoric all day, and in the end, even the textualists are interpreting the document, regardless of what they say.

MD

You're thinking too much. Want to go plonk some cans on a fencepost with a Barrett?

 

[PonySoldier]

You're thinking too much. Want to go plonk some cans on a fencepost with a Barrett?

Why yes, yes I do and from a mile away.

 

[syadasti]

Why yes, yes I do and from a mile away.

Better make sure those cans are made of Aermet and pretty thick.

 

[MikeD]

You're thinking too much. Want to go plonk some cans on a fencepost with a Barrett?

Only if you're paying for the ammo.

 

[clancy98]

You responded to MY post and MY name was the one impugned in your unfocused tirade. Again, how do you presume to know what I think? Omniscient, are we? Perhaps in the future, saying aloud to yourself what you intend to post before doing so would help; you'd certainly piss off fewer teammates!

[Aside]Why is it so damn hard for some people to admit they fvcked up?

I am no different in person than I am on the internet- love me/hate me...I couldn't care less.

I am curious though- why do you choose to pick fights with Lifetime NRA Members who have been shooting for over 25 years with arsenals that, in all probability, exceed your own?

my unfocused tirade also referenced the comment about the UK, which you didn't make, and I figured that you were smart enough to make that connection.

But I'm SO sorry I hurt your feelings mr tough guy, and to tell you the truth, i dont care how many guns you have. You're obviously on the pro-gun side and you are still trying to find something to argue with me about. You can only shoot one (or two cowboy style) at a time. And I know plenty of people with plenty of guns, that couldn't hit my big ass if their life depended on it.

If thats not you, congratulations on being a responsible gun owner. And THANK YOU for being an NRA member.

But drop the debate about the post replies, because its kind of distracting.