Do we really need assault weapons?

[tdowe99]

I'm all for people owning rifles and shotguns to hunt with, but I think owning an assault weapon is crazy. You're not gonna hunt a deer or turkey with that.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=20&u=/ap/20040907/ap_on_re_us/assault_weapons_2

[timg1414]

the question is not whether we need them but is it our right to own assult weapons? unfortunatly the answer is yes

[nonewdirections]

i don't think it is our right to own them. i don't understand how people can be anti-terrorist and pro-assault rifle.

[DMBSignGuy]

the question is not whether we need them but is it our right to own assult weapons? unfortunatly the answer is yes

the answer is no we dont have that right. i dont want to open up a can of worms here or anything but a good understanding of the 2nd amendment, not the half a sentence understanding the NRA has, explains in plain english that we do not have the right to own guns. that doesnt mean we cant own guns, people just need to understand that the 2nd amendment doesnt give them the right to own one.

[cyberhound]

the answer is no we dont have that right. i dont want to open up a can of worms here or anything but a good understanding of the 2nd amendment, not the half a sentence understanding the NRA has, explains in plain english that we do not have the right to own guns. that doesnt mean we cant own guns, people just need to understand that the 2nd amendment doesnt give them the right to own one.
You must be reading a different second amendment. Not only did the founders mean there was a right among all citizens to bear arms in the form of guns or whatever necessary, they expected it to be a duty of the citizenry to do so and to know how to use them in order to take back control of the government if need be.


"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188


If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46


"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]


"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1979


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789


" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380


" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836


"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386


"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

[System]

Does any one else here LEGALLY own a fully automatic weapon?



Yes it is possible to legally own one, you need an FBI background check and several thousand dollars

[Rob]

It's amazing how people like to take the constitution in a literal, word for word sense rather than in the spirit for which it was intended. You want to have a gun? Fine. Go hunting. Go to a shooting range. I don't care. But own an assault rifle? Give me a fucking break. There is no rationality behind owning such a weapon.

Oh, and hunting isn't a sport until you give bears and deer guns, too. THEN it's a sport, and it'd probably be a fucking entertaining one, too.

[System]

It's amazing how people like to take the constitution in a literal, word for word sense rather than in the spirit for which it was intended. You want to have a gun? Fine. Go hunting. Go to a shooting range. I don't care. But own an assault rifle? Give me a fucking break. There is no rationality behind owning such a weapon.

Oh, and hunting isn't a sport until you give bears and deer guns, too. THEN it's a sport, and it'd probably be a fucking entertaining one, too.

No rationality?

I have spent some very good quality time with my father and brothers both on the range and in the field.

have you ever tried hunting? It isn't a bunch of idiots shooting everything in sight. There is a definate talent involved. You may not consider a sport but I do. It also proves a great way to control the herd. Do you want a bunch of deer dieing of starvation or do you want the hunters to take them and enjoy the meat and the thrill of the hunt. I know people that take deer and then give the meet to the food pantry. Is that bad too?

But as for the assualt weapon, We don't use it for hunting only for target shooting. Nothign wrong with killing some paper targets is there? or should I go hug a tree before i chop it down for firewood?

[EatSleepJeep]

Does any one else here LEGALLY own a fully automatic weapon?



Yes it is possible to legally own one, you need an FBI background check and several thousand dollars
Fully automatic weapons are very hard to acquire as are their permits, as they should be. Unfortunately, most people don't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. Most media idiots refer to semi automatics as automatic to make them sound worse.

Semi-auto: one round is discharged per trigger pull. Many hunting rifles and shotguns and most pistols are semi-auto

Full-auto: Rounds are continually discharged as long as the trigger is held down.

I won't get into bolt action, pump action, or single/double action revolvers.

Semi-automatic weapons are the most common in America, and should not be banned. Both of the following rifles are semi auto and function identically, one just looks meaner:
Bushmaster (http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/carbon15/Images/C15R97Swbgrnd.jpg)
Remington (http://www.remington.com/images/firearms/7400wd.jpg)

Fully-automatic weapons require quite a bit more training and are very hard to keep on target. There are already harsh penalties for possessing one, possessing conversion parts, or using one of these weapons.

[System]

Fully automatic weapons are very hard to acquire as are their permits, as they should be. Unfortunately, most people don't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. Most media idiots refer to semi automatics as automatic to make them sound worse.

Semi-auto: one round is discharged per trigger pull. Many hunting rifles and shotguns and most pistols are semi-auto

Full-auto: Rounds are continually discharged as long as the trigger is held down.

I won't get into bolt action, pump action, or single/double action revolvers.

Semi-automatic weapons are the most common in America, and should not be banned. Both of the following rifles are semi auto and function identically, one just looks meaner:
Bushmaster (http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/carbon15/Images/C15R97Swbgrnd.jpg)
Remington (http://www.remington.com/images/firearms/7400wd.jpg)

Fully-automatic weapons require quite a bit more training and are very hard to keep on target. There are already harsh penalties for possessing one, possessing conversion parts, or using one of these weapons.

All of that is very true. I had to have a FBI background check before I could buy one.

[jrock5730]

I don't think we do, but apparently, the lobbyist have done a good job of making sure the ban expires. Way to go congress :violent

[seantrantham]

Assult weapons have gotten a lot of bad press lately, but they're manufactured for a reason, to take out today's modern super animal, such as the flying squirel and the electric eel - Lenny

[jrcdmb40]

The term assault rifle is vastly overused.

[EatSleepJeep]

I can agree that certain weapons should be banned:

Both of the following are semi-automatic, 9mm pistols that .
The first is an inaccurate, piece of crap weapon that you'd be lucky to put 2000 rounds through before it fell apart. Worthless; with no practical application. Intratec Tec 9 (http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0000/8.htm)

The second is the most highly respected and widely used self-defense and law enforcement side arm in the world. Virtually indestructible, extremely accurate, quite reliable and operates jam-free for upwards of 100,000 rounds. It can even be easily modified to fire underwater. Glock 17 (http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0400/467.htm)

The problem is that on paper, they are the same type of gun; in practice, they are nowhere near close to each other.

[System]

I can agree that certain weapons should be banned:

Both of the following are semi-automatic, 9mm pistols that .
The first is an inaccurate, piece of crap weapon that you'd be lucky to put 2000 rounds through before it fell apart. Worthless; with no practical application. Intratec Tec 9 (http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0000/8.htm)

The second is the most highly respected and widely used self-defense and law enforcement side arm in the world. Virtually indestructible, extremely accurate, quite reliable and operates jam-free for upwards of 100,000 rounds. It can even be easily modified to fire underwater. Glock 17 (http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0400/467.htm)



The problem is that on paper, they are the same type of gun; in practice, they are nowhere near close to each other.


Why do you wanna ban the Glock?

The Tec 9 I understand, but the Glock?

[Holla9]

Fully automatic weapons are very hard to acquire as are their permits, as they should be. Unfortunately, most people don't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. Most media idiots refer to semi automatics as automatic to make them sound worse.

Semi-auto: one round is discharged per trigger pull. Many hunting rifles and shotguns and most pistols are semi-auto

Full-auto: Rounds are continually discharged as long as the trigger is held down.

I won't get into bolt action, pump action, or single/double action revolvers.

Semi-automatic weapons are the most common in America, and should not be banned. Both of the following rifles are semi auto and function identically, one just looks meaner:
Bushmaster (http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/carbon15/Images/C15R97Swbgrnd.jpg)
Remington (http://www.remington.com/images/firearms/7400wd.jpg)

Fully-automatic weapons require quite a bit more training and are very hard to keep on target. There are already harsh penalties for possessing one, possessing conversion parts, or using one of these weapons.

My feeling is that a lot of people don't know what an assault rifle is, and they think that everyone is going to be able to own a fully automatic weapon now.

As far as the anti-hunters go...they are ignorant if they don't think deer hunting is a challenge.

[mmazz72]

As far as the anti-hunters go...they are ignorant if they don't think deer hunting is a challenge.

licking your own asshole would be a challenge, too. try that for awhile.

oh wait. there's little chance of something dying while doing that, so i guess that makes it no fun.

[Holla9]

licking your own asshole would be a challenge, too. try that for awhile.

oh wait. there's little chance of something dying while doing that, so i guess that makes it no fun.

If you have anything serious to say, I'll have a debate with you.

[mmazz72]

what can i say?

i think killing anything for the mere sport of it is barbaric. and in this day, unless you're stuck living out in the middle of nowhere, hunting for food is completely unnecessary.

i made my comment above because i felt like chiming in. it was just a comment, though. i don't see any point in a debate, because you're not going to convince me that hunting is ok (though you're welcome to try of course), and i'm not going to convince you that you should stop doing it (actually, i'm only assuming that you do it, based on the fact that you defended it. maybe you don't. either way, i doubt i'll change your opinion of it).

[jrock5730]

though I agree that deer hunting is not a sport, it is very much needed to control the population of deer. I do wish deer had guns though, I bet alot less people would be hunting, and it would only be fair right??

[mmazz72]

though I agree that deer hunting is not a sport, it is very much needed to control the population of deer. I do wish deer had guns though, I bet alot less people would be hunting, and it would only be fair right??
explain why it's needed.

ah. i didn't see your edit at first. and i do agree with that.

[zaskar]

i think killing anything for the mere sport of it is barbaric. and in this day, unless you're stuck living out in the middle of nowhere, hunting for food is completely unnecessary.

Answer me this simple question:

What is the difference between the slaughtering of a cow in a meat plant vs going out and killing your own deer? The end result is the same, some people prefer different kinds of meat.

If you feel it's barbaric to eat any living animal, I'll agree to disagree with you.

If you think there is any difference between buying a pound of burger at the store vs doing it yourself out in the woods, you need to pull the wool from in front of your eyes. The meat you buy at the store used to be an animal to that someone had to kill. Don't give me the "it's more humane to kill a cow in a packing plat" BS, ever been to one? I have, if you take down a deer properly (or any other animal) it will suffer far less than the average cow in a packing plant.

[jrock5730]

explain why it's needed.

ah. i didn't see your edit at first. and i do agree with that.

its needed because if the deer population was not controlled, they would eat everything, there would be more car accidents, and there are many other reasons I probably can't think of right now...

[Rob]

Killing a deer or bear with a crossbow takes talent. Shooting a big fucking animal from a hundred yards is a joke. The only time I've ever been shooting I could hit 2-foot targets on the range from distances greater than that. The true talent is doing it while drunk, or staying quiet enough to not scare the animal off while drunk. Regardless, it's a passtime, not a sport.

[mmazz72]

Answer me this simple question:

What is the difference between the slaughtering of a cow in a meat plant vs going out and killing your own deer? The end result is the same, some people prefer different kinds of meat.

If you feel it's barbaric to eat any living animal, I'll agree to disagree with you.

If you think there is any difference between buying a pound of burger at the store vs doing it yourself out in the woods, you need to pull the wool from in front of your eyes. The meat you buy at the store used to be an animal to that someone had to kill. Don't give me the "it's more humane to kill a cow in a packing plat" BS, ever been to one? I have, if you take down a deer properly (or any other animal) it will suffer far less than the average cow in a packing plant.
i almost agree with you completely. i'm vegetarian (and i'm really not looking to defend that choice in this thread. you want to eat meat? go for it.). so yes, i don't eat any animals.

however...while i don't agree with animals being killed for food anywhere (packing plants or otherwise), i know that the killing/eating of animals is something that's probably never going to stop. i've come to grips with that reality. but the way i see it, if they're already being killed by the millions and being made conveniently available to you in your local grocery store...why is it necessary to add to the slaughter by going out and doing more on your own? why can't you just eat what's already being made available to you?

[Holla9]

what can i say?

i think killing anything for the mere sport of it is barbaric. and in this day, unless you're stuck living out in the middle of nowhere, hunting for food is completely unnecessary.

i made my comment above because i felt like chiming in. it was just a comment, though. i don't see any point in a debate, because you're not going to convince me that hunting is ok (though you're welcome to try of course), and i'm not going to convince you that you should stop doing it (actually, i'm only assuming that you do it, based on the fact that you defended it. maybe you don't. either way, i doubt i'll change your opinion of it).

If people didn't hunt, the population would be way out of control and the deer would end up dying from starvation, being hit by cars, ect. To me, killing a deer almost instantly seems better than having it suffer. And believe it or not, there ARE people out there who can't afford to buy their own food... I have donated deer to the needy.

[ambysshrink]

I think that assault weapons are absolutely necessary today. What if for example, a bunch of members of the Republican Guard break into your house and you need to take them all out but you don't have an AK-47?

[jrock5730]

I think that assault weapons are absolutely necessary today. What if for example, a bunch of members of the Republican Guard break into your house and you need to take them all out but you don't have an AK-47?

I only think they are needed to take out people with no intelligence.. :rolleyes: :lol

[Holla9]

AK-47s are legally available regardless of the ban.

[mmazz72]

animals were here before people. people move on to animals territory, and when the animals become a "nuisance", people just kill them.

i understand survival of the fittest and all that, but still...this scenario just doesn't seem right. they cause car accidents, so kill them. but they were there before the cars were. they're going to starve, so we may as well just shoot them. well, hell...eventually everything dies, so why not just kill it all now and "stop the suffering"?

i don't know. sometimes i think i'm the only person who thinks this way. and i don't even really consider myself to be a "tree-hugger". i just have a lot more faith in animals than i do in humans.

i need to find a new planet to live on. :(

[Holla9]

animals were here before people. people move on to animals territory, and when the animals become a "nuisance", people just kill them.

i understand survival of the fittest and all that, but still...this scenario just doesn't seem right. they cause car accidents, so kill them. but they were there before the cars were. they're going to starve, so we may as well just shoot them. well, hell...eventually everything dies, so why not just kill it all now and "stop the suffering"?

i don't know. sometimes i think i'm the only person who thinks this way. and i don't even really consider myself to be a "tree-hugger". i just have a lot more faith in animals than i do in humans.

i need to find a new planet to live on. :(

Hey, I would LOVE for people to stop tearing down the trees and building houses. Unfortunately, that won't happen.

[jrcdmb40]

you cant get a fully auto ak

[mmazz72]

Hey, I would LOVE for people to stop tearing down the trees and building houses. Unfortunately, that won't happen.
yeah i know thing will never change. i just have to stop caring.

[jrock5730]

animals were here before people. people move on to animals territory, and when the animals become a "nuisance", people just kill them.

i understand survival of the fittest and all that, but still...this scenario just doesn't seem right. they cause car accidents, so kill them. but they were there before the cars were. they're going to starve, so we may as well just shoot them. well, hell...eventually everything dies, so why not just kill it all now and "stop the suffering"?

i don't know. sometimes i think i'm the only person who thinks this way. and i don't even really consider myself to be a "tree-hugger". i just have a lot more faith in animals than i do in humans.

i need to find a new planet to live on. :(

I understand with what your saying, and I agree, but you have to look at what happened before then. The indians where here before us as well, but it didn't take too long for the US gov't to get rid of them either. The government cares not who gets hurt, as long as they get what they want. Its bullshit, but its what this country is. As much as I would love to live elsewhere, I am stuck in the land of the free(hahahaha).

[jrcdmb40]

"semi-automatic assault rifle" (AR-15, AK, SKS) may have two of the following: ability to accept hi-capacity magazines, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet lug. If the weapon is Pre-ban (made or imported prior to '94) it has none of the above restrictions (other than it has to be semi-auto).

[zaskar]

mmazz72,

I can fully respect your feeling towards animals (myself, I love steak). Some people prefer non-processed meat (grocery store) so they get there own. There are some (many) that just enjoy killing things. Since you can't really allow one group and not the other, we have to live with it. Hopefully most people that hunt actually use the animal for something (leather, food, etc...) I know some don't, they just want to kill. Oh well, better bambi than their neighbor, right? I guess it depends who they live next to.....

Your avatar is very interesting considering your stand on this subject.

[System]

If people didn't hunt, the population would be way out of control and the deer would end up dying from starvation, being hit by cars, ect. To me, killing a deer almost instantly seems better than having it suffer. And believe it or not, there ARE people out there who can't afford to buy their own food... I have donated deer to the needy.


I love this post, you said what I couldn't

Besides deer hunting with a bow and arrow is one of the most difficult things I have ever done. It is right next to advanced hypersonic aerodynamics.

[Holla9]

I love this post, you said what I couldn't

Besides deer hunting with a bow and arrow is one of the most difficult things I have ever done. It is right next to advanced hypersonic aerodynamics.
I can't wait untill Oct. 15th(bow season) :thumbsup This will be my 8th season bowhunting and I can say one thing for sure - bowhunting is a huge challenge.

[mmazz72]

I understand with what your saying, and I agree, but you have to look at what happened before then. The indians where here before us as well, but it didn't take too long for the US gov't to get rid of them either. The government cares not who gets hurt, as long as they get what they want. Its bullshit, but its what this country is. As much as I would love to live elsewhere, I am stuck in the land of the free(hahahaha).
oh, i haven't forgotten about the natives of this land. they were treated...well, like animals. but it's not just the america or it's government that is this way. it's humans in general. people want what they want, and will take it by any means necessary.

and yes, before anyone gets too insulted, i know everyone isn't like this. but you have to admit, it's a very small minority that isn't.

[System]

i need to find a new planet to live on. :(

I hear mars is nice this time of year...

But maybe then you will become the game and the martians will hunt you

[System]

I can't wait untill Oct. 15th(bow season) :thumbsup This will be my 8th season bowhunting and I can say one thing for sure - bowhunting is a huge challenge.

oct 1 for me and I just bought a new Reflex Bow.

My 25 yrd pin is the almost the same as my 15 yard....damn is that thing fast

[mmazz72]

Your avatar is very interesting considering your stand on this subject.

it's a cartoon. call me a hypocrite, but that little ball of processed meat is cute and funny as hell. :)

[jrock5730]

oct 1 for me and I just bought a new Reflex Bow.

My 25 yrd pin is the almost the same as my 15 yard....damn is that thing fast

I hope you accidentally shoot yourself in the foot with that fast thing... :lol

[mmazz72]

I hear mars is nice this time of year...

But maybe then you will become the game and the martians will hunt you
and as much as i wouldn't enjoy being hunted, i'd understand it. because they were there first.

[Holla9]

oct 1 for me and I just bought a new Reflex Bow.

My 25 yrd pin is the almost the same as my 15 yard....damn is that thing fast

Reflex huh ? Thats what I have :)
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/GoTtAgEtTHeGASH/bow_gun.jpg

I use a pendulum sight, no guessing for me.

[System]

I hope you accidentally shoot yourself in the foot with that fast thing... :lol

You know how friggen stupid somebody would have to be to shoot themself with a bow?

Honostly...it is like driving over you own foot

[System]

Reflex huh ? Thats what I have :)
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/GoTtAgEtTHeGASH/bow_gun.jpg

I use a pendulum sight, no guessing for me.

You like your pendulum sight? What yardage did you tune it to to start with?

I am thinking about getting into 3d shooting and they say that pedulums are the way to go.

[Holla9]

You like your pendulum sight? What yardage did you tune it to to start with?

I am thinking about getting into 3d shooting and they say that pedulums are the way to go.

The pendulum sight is great, its one less thing you have to think about when you're heart is pounding while that buck is walking towards your treestand :) If my memory serves me correctly, the sight was pretty much dead on when I installed it :ugh:

[jrock5730]

You know how friggen stupid somebody would have to be to shoot themself with a bow?

Honostly...it is like driving over you own foot

for some reason, it would not suprise me if you did that...

[cyberhound]

It's amazing how people like to take the constitution in a literal, word for word sense rather than in the spirit for which it was intended. You want to have a gun? Fine. Go hunting. Go to a shooting range. I don't care. But own an assault rifle? Give me a fucking break. There is no rationality behind owning such a weapon.
Perhaps if you had reading comprehension skills, you would be able to understand the constitution. Clearly from this and and your previous post on freedom of religion, you lack such skills.

[jrock5730]

Perhaps if you had reading comprehension skills, you would be able to understand the constitution. Clearly from this and and your previous post on freedom of religion, you lack such skills.


Rob, never listen to this moron. His name and sig tell you everything you need to know about this assclown.

[EatSleepJeep]

AK-47s are legally available regardless of the ban.
Wrong.

An AK-47 is very rare, it is the 1947 design of a fully automatic rifle by Kalishnikov. It was updated in 1974, (the AK-74) so most of what you see of wartime footage is actually the AK-74. The civilian lookalike version in semi-automatic action is available in the united states and known as the SKS(Samozariadnyia Karabina Simonova). Real AK-47 rifles are quite rare.

[jrock5730]

Wrong.

An AK-47 is very rare, it is the 1947 design of a fully automatic rifle by Kalishnikov. It was updated in 1974, (the AK-74) so most of what you see of wartime footage is actually the AK-74. The civilian lookalike version in semi-automatic action is available in the united states and known as the SKS(Samozariadnyia Karabina Simonova). Real AK-47 rifles are quite rare.

you said "wrong", and then made a statement that did nothing but state the difference between two guns. Makes no sense....

[EatSleepJeep]

AK-47's are not legally available in the US, unless you have a federal firearms license. What he thinks is an fully automatic AK-47 is actually a semi-automatic SKS. What most people call an AK-47 is actually and AK-74, anyway. Facts. I know 'em.

[jrock5730]

AK-47's are not legally available in the US, unless you have a federal firearms license. What he thinks is an fully automatic AK-47 is actually a semi-automatic SKS. What most people call an AK-47 is actually and AK-74, anyway. Facts. I know 'em.


all ya had to do was say that in the first place :)

[EatSleepJeep]

I believe I did.

[jrock5730]

I believe I did.

well, no need to argue, but you didn't, lol. All you did was let someone know they were thinking of a different gun. Nowhere did you say you they were illegal, or that you had to have a federal license.

[boilermaker26]

well, no need to argue, but you didn't, lol. All you did was let someone know they were thinking of a different gun. Nowhere did you say you they were illegal, or that you had to have a federal license.

Yeah ... no need to argue?!? :lol

[System]

for some reason, it would not suprise me if you did that...

You have no idea what you are talking about...go back to the kidding discussion and let the adults talk

[cyberhound]

Rob, never listen to this moron. His name and sig tell you everything you need to know about this assclown.
And you can prove I'm wrong?

[jrock5730]

And you can prove I'm wrong?

there is no need to prove you wrong, anyone who "trust government" is a moron in my book.

[jrock5730]

You have no idea what you are talking about...go back to the kidding discussion and let the adults talk

I said I hope he accidentally shoots himself in the foot. I did not realize that me hoping for something means I have no idea what I am talking about.

[System]

there is no need to prove you wrong, anyone who "trust government" is a moron in my book.

I trust them. In fact your tax dollars are paying me to surf AM.org right now...

[cyberhound]

there is no need to prove you wrong, anyone who "trust government" is a moron in my book.
I can see you take everything at face value.

[jrock5730]

I trust them. In fact your tax dollars are paying me to surf AM.org right now...

trust them all you want, its your choice. My tax dollars also pay to kill thousands of people each year, but that does not make me trust my government.

[jrock5730]

I can see you take everything at face value.

sorry, I must of missed the fine print.

[Holla9]

Wrong.

An AK-47 is very rare, it is the 1947 design of a fully automatic rifle by Kalishnikov. It was updated in 1974, (the AK-74) so most of what you see of wartime footage is actually the AK-74. The civilian lookalike version in semi-automatic action is available in the united states and known as the SKS(Samozariadnyia Karabina Simonova). Real AK-47 rifles are quite rare.
I have shot the AK-47, AK-74, and SKS. All of which were obtained legally without a federal firearms license. Are you telling me there is no such thing as a semi-auto AK-47?

[Rob]

Loftin, you are the dumbest fuck this world has ever seen. You accuse somebody of taking something at face value, yet you choose to take the consititution at face value in terms of our "right" to bear arms? You questioned my reading comprehension, I question your very intelligence. A waste of flesh the likes of you is rarely seen, but it scares me somebody so like you currently calls the White House home. I'll be blocking your screen name to filter your posts from my views, as I can no longer tolerate seeing your innane, ignorant, retarded rhetoric. I can only hope a sad and pathetic human being like yourself can someday see the light and realize there's more to life than trying to bring everyone down to your wasted level of existence.

Here's something that I will not leave open to your political interpretation or evasive approach to life- You are the prime example of what is wrong in today's society, and have done more to destroy the United States of America than any terrorist ever could. You choose to divide what should be a single people, and not to show differing viewpoints, but rather to stir animosity and hatred for your amusement. You make me sick, and I'll pity you and those like you for your wasted lives.

[System]

I have shot the AK-47, AK-74, and SKS. All of which were obtained legally without a federal firearms license. Are you telling me there is no such thing as a semi-auto AK-47?

not a true AK-47

[cyberhound]

Loftin, you are the dumbest fuck this world has ever seen. You accuse somebody of taking something at face value, yet you choose to take the consititution at face value in terms of our "right" to bear arms? You questioned my reading comprehension, I question your very intelligence. A waste of flesh the likes of you is rarely seen, but it scares me somebody so like you currently calls the White House home. I'll be blocking your screen name to filter your posts from my views, as I can no longer tolerate seeing your innane, ignorant, retarded rhetoric. I can only hope a sad and pathetic human being like yourself can someday see the light and realize there's more to life than trying to bring everyone down to your wasted level of existence.

Here's something that I will not leave open to your political interpretation or evasive approach to life- You are the prime example of what is wrong in today's society, and have done more to destroy the United States of America than any terrorist ever could. You choose to divide what should be a single people, and not to show differing viewpoints, but rather to stir animosity and hatred for your amusement. You make me sick, and I'll pity you and those like you for your wasted lives.
It'll be ok Rob, one day you will die. You'll still be an idiot, but you'll be a dead idiot.

[haildmb]

Loftin, you are the dumbest fuck this world has ever seen. You accuse somebody of taking something at face value, yet you choose to take the consititution at face value in terms of our "right" to bear arms?


The debate concerning how to interpret the constitution goes well beyond the bickering match between Loftin and yourself. There are those who prefer and appreciate a very literal interpretation. Until you are appointed to the Supreme Court, your opinion on the matter is no more important.

[Saddam_Hussein]

Wow, I haven't heard a tongue lashing like that since I had to tell my son Usay to stop playing with my sarin nerve gas stockpiles.

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

Usay that crazy bastard!

[Saddam_Hussein]

He'll never learn, I tell you.

Oh wait, he's dead! Ha ha ha.

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

It wouldve been great to have him on here!

[System]

Usay that crazy bastard!

^
|
|

Osama's support for kerry is enough reason for me to vote for bush..

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

Ahh i love my AK-47

[haildmb]

Ahh i love my AK-47


Careful Osama, that might actually be an AK-74

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

I know my Russian weapons, and it sure as hell is an AK-47.

[Saddam_Hussein]

Those Russians sure do make a mean assault rifle!

[System]

So i was thinking.

What kind of idiot starts and alter-ego as one of the worst enemies this country has ever seen. Between Osama not-Bin getting Lade and "Snake Pit" Saddam here, I feel this country is safe cause the enemies are on here acting like morons.

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

This is no alter ego!

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

and im no enemy. only to georgey, we've had our differences. John is a good friend of mine, he send me his ketchup by the crate.

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

Those Russians sure do make a mean assault rifle!

among other weapons/vehicles/women/vodka

[Saddam_Hussein]

I don't know. My guards say I can use computer and I've really been getting in to the DMB lately, so I thought, hey, why not register, you know?

Who knew Osama was such a DMB fan too? Eh, go figure.

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

Love Dave and his politics! Go easy on the terrorists Georgey! we're just trying to live (except the crazy suicide bombers)

[Saddam_Hussein]

(except the crazy suicide bombers)Ha! Yeah, those guys are crazy, man!

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

I don't know where they come from, but they sure are not a dying breed!

[Osama_Bin_Laden]

^no pun intended hehe

[jrock5730]

Loftin, you are the dumbest fuck this world has ever seen. You accuse somebody of taking something at face value, yet you choose to take the consititution at face value in terms of our "right" to bear arms? You questioned my reading comprehension, I question your very intelligence. A waste of flesh the likes of you is rarely seen, but it scares me somebody so like you currently calls the White House home. I'll be blocking your screen name to filter your posts from my views, as I can no longer tolerate seeing your innane, ignorant, retarded rhetoric. I can only hope a sad and pathetic human being like yourself can someday see the light and realize there's more to life than trying to bring everyone down to your wasted level of existence.

Here's something that I will not leave open to your political interpretation or evasive approach to life- You are the prime example of what is wrong in today's society, and have done more to destroy the United States of America than any terrorist ever could. You choose to divide what should be a single people, and not to show differing viewpoints, but rather to stir animosity and hatred for your amusement. You make me sick, and I'll pity you and those like you for your wasted lives.

I honestly could have never said it better myself. I truly believe its people like this (cyber) that have destroyed this great place. It was never meant to be like this, I feel that for sure. :thumbsup

[jrock5730]

^no pun intended hehe

you guys are fucking hilarious, I love it :lol :lol

[cyberhound]

I honestly could have never said it better myself. I truly believe its people like this (cyber) that have destroyed this great place. It was never meant to be like this, I feel that for sure. :thumbsupAgain, it's ok, one day you too will die. Or, for the time being, you can just hit the little button with the x in it at the upper right hand corner of your screen and you won't have to suffer me any longer. One last thing, it doesn't become you to agree the mentally ill like Rob.

[EatSleepJeep]

I have shot the AK-47, AK-74, and SKS. All of which were obtained legally without a federal firearms license. Are you telling me there is no such thing as a semi-auto AK-47?
Correct. All true Ak-47 & AK-74 rifles are fully automatic and cannot be obtained legally without a Class III Federal Firearms License; as is true of all fully automatic or selectfire weapons.

[jrock5730]

Again, it's ok, one day you too will die. Or, for the time being, you can just hit the little button with the x in it at the upper right hand corner of your screen and you won't have to suffer me any longer. One last thing, it doesn't become you to agree the mentally ill like Rob.

I enjoy this place too much to just leave because of one person. I just disagree with your viewpoints. Like myself, you too will die, but if you are in reality what you are on these boards, I have a feeling you will be a lonely man when you die.

[cyberhound]

I enjoy this place too much to just leave because of one person. I just disagree with your viewpoints. Like myself, you too will die, but if you are in reality what you are on these boards, I have a feeling you will be a lonely man when you die.
How can you enjoy what I have destroyed:confused: Which of my viewpoints do you disagree with?

[Mark]

ok. i have just read all 4 pages of this thread, and no one has answered the original question.

Do we really need assault weapons?

someone give me 5 good reason why Joe Six-Pack American needs an assault rifle.

[Rob]

Good luck, Mark- the only reasons you'll get are bullshit political. Here is the "right" as written.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Because of the almost archaic language used, gun-toting maniacs ignore the fact that this was written with issues like the American Revolution in mind. If you can show me how the people with guns in our country form a "well regulated militia," then that's one thing, but I don't see every gun owner attending any type of organizational meeting on how to best defend our country should the Canadians or Mexicans attack. Granted, we now have freaking armed services that have rendered the militia useless, but that, again, is ignored.

Now, I will again await the stupid political arguments ignoring the spirit of the consitution for the arguable word of a language nobody speaks anymore.

[Dancing Ants]

Loftin, you are the dumbest fuck this world has ever seen. You accuse somebody of taking something at face value, yet you choose to take the consititution at face value in terms of our "right" to bear arms? You questioned my reading comprehension, I question your very intelligence. A waste of flesh the likes of you is rarely seen, but it scares me somebody so like you currently calls the White House home. I'll be blocking your screen name to filter your posts from my views, as I can no longer tolerate seeing your innane, ignorant, retarded rhetoric. I can only hope a sad and pathetic human being like yourself can someday see the light and realize there's more to life than trying to bring everyone down to your wasted level of existence.

Here's something that I will not leave open to your political interpretation or evasive approach to life- You are the prime example of what is wrong in today's society, and have done more to destroy the United States of America than any terrorist ever could. You choose to divide what should be a single people, and not to show differing viewpoints, but rather to stir animosity and hatred for your amusement. You make me sick, and I'll pity you and those like you for your wasted lives.

you have no room to talk.

[Rob]

Good comeback.

[EatSleepJeep]

Good luck, Mark- the only reasons you'll get are bullshit political. Here is the "right" as written.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Because of the almost archaic language used, gun-toting maniacs ignore the fact that this was written with issues like the American Revolution in mind. If you can show me how the people with guns in our country form a "well regulated militia," then that's one thing, but I don't see every gun owner attending any type of organizational meeting on how to best defend our country should the Canadians or Mexicans attack. Granted, we now have freaking armed services that have rendered the militia useless, but that, again, is ignored.

Now, I will again await the stupid political arguments ignoring the spirit of the consitution for the arguable word of a language nobody speaks anymore.
National Guard Units, that are usually under the direction of their respective states' governors are our "well regulated militia."

Plus the NRA likes to ignore the "well regulated" part since it implies comprehensive laws restricting ownership or "control." I can make a lot of the ammendments fit an agenda if I only quote half of them.

BTW: I am a card carrying member of the NRA, I just lean to the middle. I guess my ACLU card balances me out.

[System]

ok. i have just read all 4 pages of this thread, and no one has answered the original question.

Do we really need assault weapons?

someone give me 5 good reason why Joe Six-Pack American needs an assault rifle.


A few things

Joe Six-Pack doesn't need an assault weapon.

Let me compare it to a subject we can all understand, cars

You can buy a Yugo, and it will get you from point A to point B

But I prefer high performance, so I am going to buy a Ferrari.

Still gets me from Point A to Point B but in a different path, time, etc

You can use a single shot 20 gauge shotgun to target shoot with, or you can target shoot with an "assault weapon" which is more fun, enjoyable, and safer in the right hands.

and on a side note, I do not like the term Assualt Weapon. I don't know what I would use but assault weapon just sounds bad. i don't assualt people, only paper targets.

[Mark]

that is a weak analogy, in my opinion.

your comment... "safer in the right hands" is weak, too. you can say that about anything. a car is safer in the hands of a sober person, than a drunk. it should go without saying.

i still don't see good reasons why assault weapons should be legal.

[Holla9]

that is a weak analogy, in my opinion.

your comment... "safer in the right hands" is weak, too. you can say that about anything. a car is safer in the hands of a sober person, than a drunk. it should go without saying.

i still don't see good reasons why assault weapons should be legal.

Why shouldn't they be legal? Criminals can get the weapons they want, bans don't affect the criminas. If assault weapons are banned, do you think criminals still commit crimes, but obey the weapons ban? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to own assault weapons.

Again, I don't think most of you understand what the assault weapons ban actually banned. All it did was regulate the amount of features an assault weapon made after 94' can have. No new weapons are available to the public now because of the ban being no longer in affect, you can just buy guns made after 94' with certain features such as grenade launchers, bayonet lug, and pistol grip. Same guns, different features. Keep in mind that these features were legal, regardless of the ban, on weapons made before 94'.

[Rob]

These weapons are designed to kill human beings. Period. There's NO need for that, at all. By legalizing them, you make it easier for the criminals to get them. Will they get them regardless? Possibly, but it's more difficult. I'd rather they were illegal so anybody carrying them can be subject to their seizure- keep them off the street entirely.

As for "Why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to own assault weapons"... Why does anybody need them? Why SHOULD they have the right? What is the point in owning something designed soley for the purpose of killing?

[Mark]

Why shouldn't they be legal? Criminals can get the weapons they want, bans don't affect the criminas. If assault weapons are banned, do you think criminals still commit crimes, but obey the weapons ban? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to own assault weapons.


so, by that logic, i should be able to go buy a nuclear bomb. i mean, if criminals (ie: saddam, osama, etc) can get them, then i should be able to get one to defend myself.

edit: you don't even need to go as far as nuclear bombs. how about gernades? criminals have those, can i? how about anthrax. a criminal had some of that. i think i need some too.

[Mark]

and i am still waiting for 5 good reasons people should be allowed to own them.

hell, give me 2 reasons for that matter.

[Holla9]

These weapons are designed to kill human beings. Period. There's NO need for that, at all. By legalizing them, you make it easier for the criminals to get them. Will they get them regardless? Possibly, but it's more difficult. I'd rather they were illegal so anybody carrying them can be subject to their seizure- keep them off the street entirely.

As for "Why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to own assault weapons"... Why does anybody need them? Why SHOULD they have the right? What is the point in owning something designed soley for the purpose of killing?


They are fun to shoot. Its a hobby. Can you pull up statistics showing crimes with assault weapons?

[EatSleepJeep]

A few things

Joe Six-Pack doesn't need an assault weapon.

Let me compare it to a subject we can all understand, cars

You can buy a Yugo, and it will get you from point A to point B

But I prefer high performance, so I am going to buy a Ferrari.

Still gets me from Point A to Point B but in a different path, time, etc

You can use a single shot 20 gauge shotgun to target shoot with, or you can target shoot with an "assault weapon" which is more fun, enjoyable, and safer in the right hands.

and on a side note, I do not like the term Assualt Weapon. I don't know what I would use but assault weapon just sounds bad. i don't assualt people, only paper targets.
To play this analogy out...

A Ferrari Enzo(for example) is street legal, has met various safety and emission requirements, has headlights and taillights, reflectors, etc. and is actually a bonafide form of transportation. But on the flipside, should I be able to own a Ferrari F1 race car? Is it the same thing? It has 4 tires, a steering wheel, an engine and transmission, etc...

The anser is NO, there is a reason it stays on the racetrack in the hands of competent professionals(who still manage to nearly kill themselves when using it exactly as it was designed). The same goes for assault weapons.

[EatSleepJeep]

Let's also not forget that a lot of gun accessories are now unrestricted. Magazines were limited to a 10 round capacity. Now that is gone. For instance a 10 round magazine for my Glock Model 19 sell for less than 10 bucks. Older pre-ban magazines with capacities up to 19-21 rounds sold for $100-150. The ban didn't eliminate the high capacity mags, but it certainly made them harder to acquire. Now many manufacturers will be giving away hi-cap mags with their weapons to influence sales.

Folding stocks(that shorten a rifle down to a concealable size) and flash suppressors(that can easily be turned into silencers) are now legal, too.

[Spicy McHaggis]

and i am still waiting for 5 good reasons people should be allowed to own them.

hell, give me 2 reasons for that matter.
Do you READ???

Page 1, Post 5:

You must be reading a different second amendment. Not only did the founders mean there was a right among all citizens to bear arms in the form of guns or whatever necessary, they expected it to be a duty of the citizenry to do so and to know how to use them in order to take back control of the government if need be.

* "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

* "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

* If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

* "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

* "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

* "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

* "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

* "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

* "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

* "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

* "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

* "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1979

* "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

* " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

* " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

* "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

* "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

* "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

* "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

[Rob]

Jon, there are no legitimate, up-to-date reasons given in that post. Mark obviously read that, and discounted it as the out-of-date and out-of-context text it is. I frankly don't care what people in the late 1700's had to say, as their world was entirely different from the one we live in today.

One of the reasons given in that text is to be able to lead an armed revolt against the government. Is this a logical or rational course of action in today's age? Of course not.

As for the hobby... Get a paintball gun or a crossbow with a safety tip. You can still shoot, you don't need to do it with something lethal.

[Holla9]

To play this analogy out...

A Ferrari Enzo(for example) is street legal, has met various safety and emission requirements, has headlights and taillights, reflectors, etc. and is actually a bonafide form of transportation. But on the flipside, should I be able to own a Ferrari F1 race car? Is it the same thing? It has 4 tires, a steering wheel, an engine and transmission, etc...

The anser is NO, there is a reason it stays on the racetrack in the hands of competent professionals(who still manage to nearly kill themselves when using it exactly as it was designed). The same goes for assault weapons.

Just because it is capable of crazy speeds on a race track doesn't mean the owner of one is going to drive it like that one the street. Same goes for assault weapons.

CRIMINALS commit crimes with guns, and will aquire guns regardless of any weapons ban that takes place. The only difference is that law-abiding citizens wouldn't have guns to defend themselves.

[Rob]

You don't need a gun to defend yourself. If you have a gun pulled on you, what are you going to do? Hope you can draw, kill the safety, and fire before the already-pulled gun fires? Nope.

[DreemingTree]

You don't need a gun to defend yourself. If you have a gun pulled on you, what are you going to do? Hope you can draw, kill the safety, and fire before the already-pulled gun fires? Nope.
yes, some people do need guns to protect themselves and their property. If a situation ever arises where I have a gun pulled on me in my own home, chances are I will already have mine pulled too and it will come in very handy against my opposer. ;)

[System]

These weapons are designed to kill human beings. Period. There's NO need for that, at all. By legalizing them, you make it easier for the criminals to get them. Will they get them regardless? Possibly, but it's more difficult.


All weapons are designed to kill and/or harm things. And yes there is a need for things like that, I won't go into it but there is a need for it.

Do you think Criminals go to a gun store to buy them anyway? No, they steal them, buy off the black market, or any other numerous avenues to get a gun.

The ban just prevented law-abiding sportsmen to purchase them, The law didn't apply to the guy selling the full auto's out of the back of a truck in a alley somewhere.

[DreemingTree]

but assault weapons are absoloutely unnecessary,

[EatSleepJeep]

Responsible gun owners would never buy a Tec-9, they're smart enough to know that it's worthless. Responsible gun owners don't need to spray the area with rounds.

Law abiding gun owners know that fully automatic fire is inaccurate after the second or third round and wouldn't want to hit their family and neighbors, and therefore don't need a Steyr Aug.

Responsible gun owners know that most people in a defensive shooting situation tend to empty their magazine without even noticing(including police). They also know that by making pre-ban, hi-cap mags more cost prohibitive and coveted, less will make it into the hands of criminals. If someone breaks into my home, I probably don't need to throw 21 rounds at him, 11 will suffice.

[System]

Let's also not forget that a lot of gun accessories are now unrestricted. Magazines were limited to a 10 round capacity. Now that is gone. For instance a 10 round magazine for my Glock Model 19 sell for less than 10 bucks. Older pre-ban magazines with capacities up to 19-21 rounds sold for $100-150. The ban didn't eliminate the high capacity mags, but it certainly made them harder to acquire. Now many manufacturers will be giving away hi-cap mags with their weapons to influence sales.

Folding stocks(that shorten a rifle down to a concealable size) and flash suppressors(that can easily be turned into silencers) are now legal, too.


High Capacity magazines only reduce the time it takes to reload. Besides, if you can't hit it you shouldn't be shooting at it. All it takes is one....

Folding stocks to make a rifle concealable? Have you ever seen the size of some of the rifles that they came with?

Suppressors into silencers? Suppressors have nothing to do with the sound of a round being fired. They hide the muzzle flash, period. Silencers aren't like the ones in James Bond, the most you can get is only a few shots before it heats up and starts producing an noticably louder noise.

[System]

You don't need a gun to defend yourself. If you have a gun pulled on you, what are you going to do? Hope you can draw, kill the safety, and fire before the already-pulled gun fires? Nope.

I had a gun pulled on me once, and honostly if i had the right to carry I would have had one on me at the time and based on my judgement at the time would have used the necessary force to eliminate the threat

But carring a gun is not for everyone, only properly trained and licensed individuals should have one.

And yes, if I could draw the wearpon, remove the safety and fire before they know what hit them.

[DreemingTree]

And yes, if I could draw the wearpon, remove the safety and fire before they know what hit them.
:lol :thumbsup :violent

[System]

Responsible gun owners know that most people in a defensive shooting situation tend to empty their magazine without even noticing(including police). They also know that by making pre-ban, hi-cap mags more cost prohibitive and coveted, less will make it into the hands of criminals. If someone breaks into my home, I probably don't need to throw 21 rounds at him, 11 will suffice.

How many people do you konw can put 11 straight rounds into somebody? By laying out 21 pieces of lead you increase your chances of survival.

If someone came into my house and was intending to do harm, Shoot till it goes click, then reload and make sure the bastard isn't moving by shooting till it goes click again.

then call 911 and bring the meat wagon...

21 rounds into a home invader is better than 11....

[System]

:lol :thumbsup :violent

Don't believe me?

[Mark]

system: you still haven't given me any reason why you, or anyone else, would need one.

[EatSleepJeep]

I said I probably don't NEED to, but I will.

I have a 15 round mag with a +4, plus the one in the chamber. Tritium night sights and a lasermax in the recoil rod guarantee I can hit things in the dark.

[System]

I said I probably don't NEED to, but I will.

I have a 15 round mag with a +4, plus the one in the chamber. Tritium night sights and a lasermax in the recoil rod guarantee I can hit things in the dark.

Caliber?

[System]

system: you still haven't given me any reason why you, or anyone else, would need one.

1) Home defense
2) Sporting Competition
3) Sporting Recreation
4) Military Collecting
5) Cause the Bill of Rights said i can

[Holla9]

1) Home defense
2) Sporting Competition
3) Sporting Recreation
4) Military Collecting
5) Cause the Bill of Rights said i can :thumbsup

[DreemingTree]

Don't believe me?
no, i do believe you, just didn't expect much "pro-guns" talk around here. wanna draw? ;)

[System]

no, i do believe you, just didn't expect much "pro-guns" talk around here. wanna draw? ;)

ya, i haven't killed anything in a few weeks.

speaking of killing...

Bow and Arrow deer seasons opens for me in 17 days....

[DreemingTree]

ya, i haven't killed anything in a few weeks.

speaking of killing...

Bow and Arrow deer seasons opens for me in 17 days....
very cool, my father-in-law was just talking about that too. He's the most avid hunter i've ever met and he's from NY. He kills A LOT of animals up there every year. I think he went boar hunting last year.

[cyberhound]

To play this analogy out...

A Ferrari Enzo(for example) is street legal, has met various safety and emission requirements, has headlights and taillights, reflectors, etc. and is actually a bonafide form of transportation. But on the flipside, should I be able to own a Ferrari F1 race car? Is it the same thing? It has 4 tires, a steering wheel, an engine and transmission, etc...

The anser is NO, there is a reason it stays on the racetrack in the hands of competent professionals(who still manage to nearly kill themselves when using it exactly as it was designed). The same goes for assault weapons.
Thats a poor analogy because if you have the money you can own the Ferrari race car. There is no limit on your right to own it. There is however, a limit on your right to use it. You cannot take it on the streets because they are collectively owned by the public through the government. You have no right to drive and/or drive certain vehicles. It is a priviledge afforded to you. This is not the same with guns. Bringing hunting or paintball into the argument is asinine. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or hobbies. The founders intended the peoples right to own guns as a deterrent against government tyranny. To say that taking on the government isn't plausible is a weak argument. Yes, for a few to do so it is. But for large armed citizenry to rise up against a government it is quite possible. Of course the military could do heavy damage to the citizenry with superior weapons if.....they were necessarily willing to do so. And even then you cannot ignore what is happening in places like Iraq or what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan or even Vietnam. People have througout the years and are continuing to take on superior weaponry with things like assault weapons and are doing quite a good job of it. Making assault weapons legal doesn't make them more accessible to criminals. They are going to get them regardless. And, pointing out that assault weapons are designed to kill people so people shouldn't be allowed to own them is a pointless argument in the face of the constitution, the purpose of the second amendment, and the rights afforded to the people. No shit those weapons were designed to kill a human being. That's been the intended purpose of almost every gun ever created. Pointing out the obvious doesn't help or change the argument.

[System]

Thats a poor analogy because if you have the money you can own the Ferrari race car. There is no limit on your right to own it. There is however, a limit on your right to use it. You cannot take it on the streets because they are collectively owned by the public through the government. You have no right to drive and/or drive certain vehicles. It is a priviledge afforded to you. This is not the same with guns. Bringing hunting or paintball into the argument is asinine. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or hobbies. The founders intended the peoples right to own guns as a deterrent against government tyranny. To say that taking on the government isn't plausible is a weak argument. Yes, for a few to do so it is. But for large armed citizenry to rise up against a government it is quite possible. Of course the military could do heavy damage to the citizenry with superior weapons if.....they were necessarily willing to do so. And even then you cannot ignore what is happening in places like Iraq or what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan or even Vietnam. People have througout the years and are continuing to take on superior weaponry with things like assault weapons and are doing quite a good job of it. Making assault weapons legal doesn't make them more accessible to criminals. They are going to get them regardless. And, pointing out that assault weapons are designed to kill people so people shouldn't be allowed to own them is a pointless argument in the face of the constitution, the purpose of the second amendment, and the rights afforded to the people. No shit those weapons were designed to kill a human being. That's been the intended purpose of almost every gun ever created. Pointing out the obvious doesn't help or change the argument.


Can i get an AMEN brother!

[Holla9]

ya, i haven't killed anything in a few weeks.

speaking of killing...

Bow and Arrow deer seasons opens for me in 17 days....

I haven't been able to do any scouting because I still have a cast on my leg(broken ankle - surgery/plate,7 screws). Hopefully it will be coming off next Monday and I can start walking again. Last year I set up my treestand in a VERY nice spot(I saw 6 bucks the first 2 days alone, and not 1 doe!) and I left it in the tree. My friend took a walk near my stand the other day and said there are rubs and trails EVERYWHERE. Unfortunately, theres no way that in just 3 weeks my ankle will be good enough to climb up that tree- it was hard enough with a perfectly good ankle. I'm either gonna have to find a ladder or buy a climber and find a good tree in that area for it.

[System]

I haven't been able to do any scouting because I still have a cast on my leg(broken ankle - surgery/plate,7 screws). Hopefully it will be coming off next Monday and I can start walking again. Last year I set up my treestand in a VERY nice spot(I saw 6 bucks the first 2 days alone, and not 1 doe!) and I left it in the tree. My friend took a walk near my stand the other day and said there are rubs and trails EVERYWHERE. Unfortunately, theres no way that in just 3 weeks my ankle will be good enough to climb up that tree- it was hard enough with a perfectly good ankle. I'm either gonna have to find a ladder or buy a climber and find a good tree in that area for it.

Ya, I just bought my first climber. Up through last year I have been using a ladder stand and then the stands that are like tree houses built into the trees.

I am going to go scout some new public land this sat. Hopefully I don't get my ass shot off by come city-slicker hunting and shoots the first thing he moves.

[Holla9]

Ya, I just bought my first climber. Up through last year I have been using a ladder stand and then the stands that are like tree houses built into the trees.

I am going to go scout some new public land this sat. Hopefully I don't get my ass shot off by come city-slicker hunting and shoots the first thing he moves.

I have 300 acres of private land, and 4000 acres of state land both within a mile of my house... I have never hunted on the state land and never will, because like you said, you get the morons from the city that come up and shoot at anything.

[System]

I have 300 acres of private land, and 4000 acres of state land both within a mile of my house... I have never hunted on the state land and never will, because like you said, you get the morons from the city that come up and shoot at anything.


300 Acres huh?

So when can I come....

[AdamCU81]

WOOOHOOOO!! I just bought a family pack of AK-47's! Thank you Bush! Thank you Bush! Thank you Bush! Those deer will never know what hit them!

[Holla9]

300 Acres huh?

So when can I come....

Where do you live? I'm in Orange County, NY.

[Holla9]

WOOOHOOOO!! I just bought a family pack of AK-47's! Thank you Bush! Thank you Bush! Thank you Bush! Those deer will never know what hit them!

People don't hunt with AK-47s. And what does Bush have to do with it?

[Rob]

At least I made some somewhat coherent arguments. The Bush/AK-47 comment didn't help the argument much.

[EatSleepJeep]

Caliber?
Model 19 in 9mm. I also have a sub-compact in .40 S&W(model 23) and two full frames; a 17(9mm) and 20(10mm). I dislike the compacts.:violent

[Holla9]

At least I made some somewhat coherent arguments. The Bush/AK-47 comment didn't help the argument much.

I'm always up for a good discussion/argument as long as the person at least has a clue what they're talking about.

[System]

Model 19 in 9mm. I also have a sub-compact in .40 S&W(model 23) and two full frames; a 17(9mm) and 20(10mm). I dislike the compacts.:violent

Ya,

I have a model 1911....

Nothing under a .40 for me....

[System]

I'm always up for a good discussion/argument as long as the person at least has a clue what they're talking about.

As am I, but they also must respect my point of view.

[System]

Where do you live? I'm in Orange County, NY.


I live in Southern Il.

Was more of a sarcastic joke than an actual question...

[clemson357]

animals were here before people. people move on to animals territory, and when the animals become a "nuisance", people just kill them.

i understand survival of the fittest and all that, but still...this scenario just doesn't seem right. they cause car accidents, so kill them. but they were there before the cars were. they're going to starve, so we may as well just shoot them. well, hell...eventually everything dies, so why not just kill it all now and "stop the suffering"?



there is something seriously wrong with you. In Covington, VA, where my grandparents live the deer over population problem is so bad that the city hired professional hunters as well as extending the hunting season. If you can't see how thinning the population so that some can live how they were supposed to, rather than the whole population starving and having a miserable, suffering existence until they die, i don't know what to tell you. you are beyond help. Not to mention that hunting is about getting close to nature rather than killing. And yes, I hunt, sometimes with a gun and sometimes with a bow... they both take skill.

all that is irrelevant because nobody hunts deer with assault rifles. And as somebody else pointed out, you could buy AK-47's regardless of the ban.

the question isn't about whether people need them, it is whether the government has the right to say we can't own them. people who do not own guns have a false sense of security. the fact is that a violent criminal's biggest fear is that their victim will be armed, it isn't what their mom will think of them, or whether they will get caught, their biggest fear is that you will be armed (some jail survey, i will see if i can find it). So, your right to own a gun is your biggest protection, or me owning a gun depending on how you look at it.

[JustinRIT]

1) Home defense
2) Sporting Competition
3) Sporting Recreation
4) Military Collecting
5) Cause the Bill of Rights said i can
None of those are reason why you NEED one. I own a handgun. I see absolutely, positively no point in someone NEEDING an assult weapon. Home defense can be accomplished easily with and handgun/shotgun, you don't need to spray bullets all over the house. And I think you need to clarify what you mean by competition and recreation. I would argue that non automatic weapons take more actual marksman skill to properly use.

I don't fault the military for using/creating these weapons. They have an obvious need. Yeah, the bill of rights says you can, but that was also back in the day when the average joe had a musket that took minutes to load a single shot. I'm all for the government allowing handgun/shotguns, and I understand the anti-government interference argument, but no civilian NEEDS an assault weapon.

There is no practical reason whatsoever.

[cyberhound]

None of those are reason why you NEED one. I own a handgun. I see absolutely, positively no point in someone NEEDING an assult weapon. Home defense can be accomplished easily with and handgun/shotgun, you don't need to spray bullets all over the house. And I think you need to clarify what you mean by competition and recreation. I would argue that non automatic weapons take more actual marksman skill to properly use.

I don't fault the military for using/creating these weapons. They have an obvious need. Yeah, the bill of rights says you can, but that was also back in the day when the average joe had a musket that took minutes to load a single shot. I'm all for the government allowing handgun/shotguns, and I understand the anti-government interference argument, but no civilian NEEDS an assault weapon.

There is no practical reason whatsoever.Practicality and need are not the issue here. If you are going to base some rights on practicality and need are you willing to do so on others? Practically speaking, a shot gun would probably be the best choice in a home because it doesn't usually send projectiles through walls to hit your kid in bed. And automatic weapons aren't the best choice for markmanship and recreation. Of course, once again, those were not the intent of the second amendment in the first place.

[JustinRIT]

Practicality and need are not the issue here. If you are going to base some rights on practicality and need are you willing to do so on others? Practically speaking, a shot gun would probably be the best choice in a home because it doesn't usually send projectiles through walls to hit your kid in bed. And automatic weapons aren't the best choice for markmanship and recreation. Of course, once again, those were not the intent of the second amendment in the first place.They indeed are the issue. If you're going to argue everything on principle, then why not have weapons grade plutonium available as well.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Are you going to tell me that well regulated militias are still necessary for the security of a free state as well, because that was the intention of our right to bear arms.

[cyberhound]

They indeed are the issue. If you're going to argue everything on principle, then why not have weapons grade plutonium available as well.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Are you going to tell me that well regulated militias are still necessary for the security of a free state as well, because that was the intention of our right to bear arms.




To your last question, I'd say so. Read the quotes I posted at the beginning of the thread. They do a pretty good job of explaining the intent of the amendment.

Look, I'm not oblivious to the times. In those days, the citizen had as much firepower as the soldier. Sometimes maybe even more. That's obviously not true today. However, it is a ludicrous stretch to bring nuclear weapons into the conversation. Since you like to discuss practicality, how practical is it for the government to launch a nuke at an insurgency in DC, or NYC? Perhaps it could happen, but I doubt it. So, I really don't think the citizens should arm themselves with nukes to save us from government tyranny. So no, I don't find that the next logical step. Hanguns, rifles, shotguns, and yes, even assault weapons are much more appropriate for the job if it became necessary.

[mwjorgens]

of course we need assault weapons!!! if we didnt have them, how on earth would small penised men put 20 pounds into a doe? and if we had no assault weapons what would are 14 year old kids bring to school when they wanna show the bullies who is boss?? hmmm hmmmm. assault weapons:thumbsup

[cyberhound]

of course we need assault weapons!!! if we didnt have them, how on earth would small penised men put 20 pounds into a doe? and if we had no assault weapons what would are 14 year old kids bring to school when they wanna show the bullies who is boss?? hmmm hmmmm. assault weapons:thumbsup
Perhaps you can tell us the percentage of hunters using assault weapons? Or what weapons kids most often bring to school to shoot the bullies with?

[JustinRIT]

Since the invention of an assault rifle or fully automatic weapon, name me one instance when a militia was necessary for national defense.

[Holla9]

I live in Southern Il.

Was more of a sarcastic joke than an actual question...

Well, if you were somewhat local you would have been welcome to come hunt :thumbsup


of course we need assault weapons!!! if we didnt have them, how on earth would small penised men put 20 pounds into a doe? and if we had no assault weapons what would are 14 year old kids bring to school when they wanna show the bullies who is boss?? hmmm hmmmm. assault weapons:thumbsup

Have you read any of this thread? ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT USED FOR HUNTING. Who the hell would use an assault weapon for deer hunting?

[mmazz72]

there is something seriously wrong with you. In Covington, VA, where my grandparents live the deer over population problem is so bad that the city hired professional hunters as well as extending the hunting season. If you can't see how thinning the population so that some can live how they were supposed to, rather than the whole population starving and having a miserable, suffering existence until they die, i don't know what to tell you. you are beyond help.

dude, i dropped out of this thread almost a week ago. what the fuck?

anyway, since you called me back...you say you don't know what to tell me, but you obviously do. you told me that there's something seriously wrong with me, and that i am beyond help.

if that's your idea of an intelligent response, than i may need to get myself one of these assault weapons i'm hearing so many great things about, and start "thinning out" the population of idiot humans...starting with you.

now shut the fuck up.

[Number27]

dude, i dropped out of this thread almost a week ago. what the fuck?

anyway, since you called me back...you say you don't know what to tell me, but you obviously do. you told me that there's something seriously wrong with me, and that i am beyond help.

if that's your idea of an intelligent response, than i may need to get myself one of these assault weapons i'm hearing so many great things about, and start "thinning out" the population of idiot humans...starting with you.

now shut the fuck up.
I'll help. he goes to FSU.

[Holla9]

Since the invention of an assault rifle or fully automatic weapon, name me one instance when a militia was necessary for national defense.

Name me one instance that you know of where a legally obtained assault rifle was used in a crime.

[JustinRIT]

Name me one instance that you know of where a legally obtained assault rifle was used in a crime.Your point? If you're going to argue that's it is your Constitutional right, it's your constitutional right on the basis that you may indeed need to form a militia for your defense. I don't see that happening.

[clemson357]

dude, i dropped out of this thread almost a week ago. what the fuck?

anyway, since you called me back...you say you don't know what to tell me, but you obviously do. you told me that there's something seriously wrong with me, and that i am beyond help.

if that's your idea of an intelligent response, than i may need to get myself one of these assault weapons i'm hearing so many great things about, and start "thinning out" the population of idiot humans...starting with you.

now shut the fuck up.

you tell me i didn't respond intelligently, and then tell me you are going to kill me....

do i need to say anything else?

[clemson357]

the fact is, mmazz, is that your arguement is uniformed and based on emotion instead of facts.

and incase you are wondering, your threats don't scare me. If you argue against hunting it is safe to say you can't shoot straight.

[mmazz72]

you tell me i didn't respond intelligently, and then tell me you are going to kill me....

do i need to say anything else?
no. you don't. not ever. i appreciate that. thanks.

[clemson357]

I'll help. he goes to FSU.

you want my address?

i'll take my odds with my glock against you two idiots armed with AK-47's and 30 round clips anyday.

[mmazz72]

the fact is, mmazz, is that your arguement is uniformed and based on emotion instead of facts.

and incase you are wondering, your threats don't scare me. If you argue against hunting it is safe to say you can't shoot straight.
that's good that you're not scared. i didn't really expect you to be, since this is a message board.

but just for the record...my problem is with killing animals.

[Holla9]

Your point? If you're going to argue that's it is your Constitutional right, it's your constitutional right on the basis that you may indeed need to form a militia for your defense. I don't see that happening.

Not once in this thread have I brought up the fact that its my right. My point is that assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, and banning assault weapons would only hurt law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey gun laws.

[clemson357]

no. you don't. not ever. i appreciate that. thanks.


you know, you are too dumb to realize that you just proved your whole argument wrong. all you say is "no one needs an assault rifle" "no one needs one" "no one needs one". apparently an argument can be made that i may need one, because emotional and unrational people like you may try to kill me.

[mmazz72]

you know, you are too dumb to realize that you just proved your whole argument wrong. all you say is "no one needs an assault rifle" "no one needs one" "no one needs one". apparently an argument can be made that i may need one, because emotional and unrational people like you may try to kill me.
:lol

you honestly think i would travel to florida just to waste you're useless ass, and i'm the dumb one. :lol

well, i guess if you can't really think of a good reason to own a gun, you may as well just make one up, right? to protect yourself from the "unrational" people. :lol

idiots are funny. :)

[JustinRIT]

Not once in this thread have I brought up the fact that its my right. My point is that assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, and banning assault weapons would only hurt law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey gun laws.If they are rarely used in crimes, it's because the risk of dealing illegal arms drives up the price, requiring more resources to be able to acquire them. I'm also confused on how it "hurts" the average citizen. What do you need an automatic weapon to be able to accomplish?

I'm off to watch the football game anyhoo. I'll be back later.

[System]

you want my address?

i'll take my odds with my glock against you two idiots armed with AK-47's and 30 round clips anyday.

Um, why does everyone think Glocks are so good?

Yes, they are simple and can be fired underwater. But honostly, plastic breaks

I would rather have my grandfather's 1911 Colt .45 that he used in WW2 over a brand new GLock anyday.

[System]

...my problem is with killing animals.


Animals taste good

[System]

A shirt everyone should own.

My new favorite shirt (http://www.lifelibertyetc.com/product.aspx?pid=5)

[mmazz72]

Animals taste good
humans taste better.

[System]

What do you need an automatic weapon to be able to accomplish?

I'm off to watch the football game anyhoo. I'll be back later.

The average citizen doesn't need a full auto. Only properly trained people need them for sport and home defense.

[clemson357]

Um, why does everyone think Glocks are so good?

Yes, they are simple and can be fired underwater. But honostly, plastic breaks

I would rather have my grandfather's 1911 Colt .45 that he used in WW2 over a brand new GLock anyday.

i can promise you a 1911 would break before a glock. I like 1911's a lot too, but glock's are superior guns

[JustinRIT]

The average citizen doesn't need a full auto. Only properly trained people need them for sport and home defense.
who is breaking into your home that can't be stopped with an already legal fire arm? And what sport?

Ok. seriously. I'm done for awhile.

[Holla9]

If they are rarely used in crimes, it's because the risk of dealing illegal arms drives up the price, requiring more resources to be able to acquire them. I'm also confused on how it "hurts" the average citizen. What do you need an automatic weapon to be able to accomplish?

I'm off to watch the footb