Originally Posted by eLefAdEr It's because the King Queen of England could walk in through your door any day now and claim it for the Empire.

There's a reason 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. The second you motherers ban handguns, we're digging up Tecumseh and getting back to business.

Originally Posted by eLefAdEr It's because the King Queen of England could walk in through your door any day now and claim it for the Empire.

http://www.cucirca.com/2010/01/11/th...tridge-family/ Click the video 2 tab, 9:15 onwards

Originally Posted by eLefAdEr It's because the King Queen of England could walk in through your door any day now and claim it for the Empire.

Yeah you're thinking of when we didnt have a Navy (You know , when it was written. And why they felt that the country needed an armed militia)
Its as if the founding fathers thought that at any moment some country might steam roll us back into bondage.
Sorry , I didnt mean to get into facts

LOL, can you imagine a bunch of 'patriots' trying to overthrow the U.S. Government today. Jesus, I'd set out my lawn chair, take the week off, and sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Originally Posted by EdRyder First you stated that something hypothetical was a fact: "He could've just as easily murdered all those people with a semi auto" (paraphrasing) Then you base your second "Fact" (loose quotes) ((that the 2nd Amendment was created for the hypothetical need to overthrow the Government )), on a video starring Penn Gillette. Dont take it to heart though bother. Plenty of shmucks out there that'll never be convinced that they're shmucks. You're not alone

Because, the only thing that makes an AW an AW is having a detachable magazine AND two evil features (pistol grip, flash hider (or threaded barrel), bayonet lug or retractable stock). Tell me how those things would make any weapon deadlier than a semi-auto hunting rifle without evil features? There's nothing hypothetical about it until you can draw a distinction.

I posted the video so that you could see it explained, so that I wouldn't have to type it all out. Why go through the trouble of explaining it when it has already been done? I have yet to hear why you think it's incorrect.

Originally Posted by eLefAdEr It's because the King Queen of England could walk in through your door any day now and claim it for the Empire.

Hyperbole at its finest.

Originally Posted by RealDeals So you basically admit that assault weapons don't serve any extra purpose for defense a regular weapon or handgun would offer, but when legislation to RE-INSTATE an assault weapons ban is mentioned (for s sake, there was one under REAGAN), there goes the farm because you may need them to overthrow the government one day? If the guy who killed six and injured 19 including Giffords didn't have an assault weapon and instead a standard weapon, there is no chance he'd do the damage he did. People had to cower for their lives and wait til he had to reload to take him down. Before you go into emphasizing how the argument was spun, the point is any reform through Congress is unlikely. Never said there wouldn't be trying. And yes, anyone with half a brain cell or iota of compassion sees the need for reform.

First of all, the guy in Arizona didn't have an assault weapon. He had a pistol, so by legal definitions, he HAD a standard weapon.

You're missing the point, and it's that AWs are no more dangerous than any other gun. Not only that, but they're used in far fewer crimes, and not just crime in general, but gun crimes, than you're average non-AW.

As I said before, Obama doesn't need congressional approval, he could push it through by EO.

Again, with so few crimes committed with these weapons, WHERE is the need for reform? It's a useless ban that doesn't do anything to curb gun violence, both in the fact that so few crimes are committed with them AND the fact that if someone is looking to commit murder, they're not going to give two shits about gun laws!

Originally Posted by RealDeals LOL, can you imagine a bunch of 'patriots' trying to overthrow the U.S. Government today. Jesus, I'd set out my lawn chair, take the week off, and sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Spoken like a true statist.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by EdRyder Yeah you're thinking of when we didnt have a Navy (You know , when it was written. And why they felt that the country needed an armed militia) Its as if the founding fathers thought that at any moment some country might steam roll us back into bondage. Sorry , I didnt mean to get into facts

Ohhhh, right, because it was tyranny from OVERSEAS that they were worried about! Man, it's weird, I always thought it was home-grown tyranny. They should really revise those history books.

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars Ohhhh, right, because it was tyranny from OVERSEAS that they were worried about! Man, it's weird, I always thought it was home-grown tyranny. They should really revise those history books.

... Are you seriously suggesting a brand new, still wet behind the ears country that didn't have a standing army was more concerned about home-grown tyranny than protecting themselves from already established world powers?

I'm sure they were worried about both, but the second had nothing to do with foreign tyranny. Jefferson said this many times (to be clear, I'm not saying Jefferson said THAT, but read his writings, it was domestic tyranny that kept him up at night).

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars It will be. Expect AWB pt. 2, even though the last one didn't work.

In case you don't know the history of the first AWB, and I' sure you don't, you should thank the NRA for that and the gun manufacturers that profited by pushing it.

Secondly, if what Obama said was a bizarre rant, I'd like to know how the person that posted the video would would describe what Romney said.

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars Spoken like a true statist.

Spoken like a true hypocrite.

And if I recall correctly, the big thing about the Gifford's and Batman shootings wasn't just about the weapon itself, but more about large capacity magazines. Lower capacity means fewer possible deaths regardless of tactiLOL you can make your gun.

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars I'm sure they were worried about both, but the second had nothing to do with foreign tyranny. Jefferson said this many times (to be clear, I'm not saying Jefferson said THAT, but read his writings, it was domestic tyranny that kept him up at night).

Jefferson was pretty introverted (not jingoistic in today's phrase, but for back then) in his view of other world countries. If you look at things like Washington's farewell address, he warned against factions tearing apart the country and government through violence. I think the argument can be made both ways, but I still think the practicality of having an armed public was the most important, or atleast a very large, factor in the 2nd Amendment. Either way, I think it needs to be taken with a grain of salt today.

Originally Posted by dohdough In case you don't know the history of the first AWB, and I' sure you don't, you should thank the NRA for that and the gun manufacturers that profited by pushing it.

Ha, I knew you'd chime in sooner or later with your baseless assumptions, as always. I know all about the first ban. I live in New York, I'm still living with that ban. I know exactly what role Ruger (and S&W I believe) played in it, and the NRA to a lesser extent.

My response? So what? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Because they backed it, that makes it right? I don't care who backed it, it was useless and an infringement of rights.

Originally Posted by dohdough Secondly, if what Obama said was a bizarre rant, I'd like to know how the person that posted the video would would describe what Romney said.

Again, SO WHAT?! Who even said anything about Romney? It has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.

Originally Posted by dohdough And if I recall correctly, the big thing about the Gifford's and Batman shootings wasn't just about the weapon itself, but more about large capacity magazines. Lower capacity means fewer possible deaths regardless of tactiLOL you can make your gun.

A high capacity mag does not an assault weapon make.

By the way? The Virginia Tech shooter used 10-round magazines. He killed twice as many as the Aurora shooter.

But yeah, I get it, lets make things illegal for everyone because of the 1% who abuse them.

Totally forgot that point, maybe the biggest crux behind AWR is also to lower magazine sizes, which generally hold a larger capacity on AWs.

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars Ha, I knew you'd chime in sooner or later with your baseless assumptions, as always. I know all about the first ban. I live in New York, I'm still living with that ban. I know exactly what role Ruger (and S&W I believe) played in it, and the NRA to a lesser extent.

Unless you live in NYC or a few other cities with handguns restrictions, I doubt that it's as bad as you pretend it to be. NY guns laws are pretty relaxed compared to those in MA. As a NY resident, you can pretty much go into any gun shop and buy out their stock of long guns and ammo...WITHOUT A PERMIT.

My response? So what? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Because they backed it, that makes it right? I don't care who backed it, it was useless and an infringement of rights.

"So what," you ask? Obviously it's because it's easier to put it all on Obama than the lobbies of your hobby that have more to do with passing that kind of legislation than the President. It's not like gun rights actually expanded under Obama, right?

Again, SO WHAT?! Who even said anything about Romney? It has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.

You posted a video with a questionable title. Don't blame me for disseminating your sources; blame yourself for putting out heavily biased ones.

A high capacity mag does not an assault weapon make. By the way? The Virginia Tech shooter used 10-round magazines. He killed twice as many as the Aurora shooter.

So maybe he was a better shot and had guns that didn't jam up on him? A hi cap mag isn't the only thing that defines what an assault weapon is? No shit and that wasn't my point? You can't deny the fact that smaller mags reduce the possibility of more people being harmed than bigger mags. It's a simple math thing.

But yeah, I get it, lets make things illegal for everyone because of the 1% who abuse them.

This is the biggest ever. I bet you don't extend that sentiment to social services like welfare.

Originally Posted by dohdough Unless you live in NYC or a few other cities with handguns restrictions, I doubt that it's as bad as you pretend it to be. NY guns laws are pretty relaxed compared to those in MA. As a NY resident, you can pretty much go into any gun shop and buy out their stock of long guns and ammo...WITHOUT A PERMIT.

Oh...my...once again, you're bringing up shit that has nothing to do with the conversation. Comparing MA's laws to NY? Ridiculous. Again, what's your point? Gun laws are better in NY than they are in China, so I should be happy just because I don't need a permit for long guns and (snort) ammo? Yes, I'm very glad that our overlords don't require a permit to exercise ALL of my right to own guns, just handguns. Thank you so, so much.

Originally Posted by dohdough "So what," you ask? Obviously it's because it's easier to put it all on Obama than the lobbies of your hobby that have more to do with passing that kind of legislation than the President. It's not like gun rights actually expanded under Obama, right?

Are you seriously claiming that the NRA and gun companies have more pull than the guy who signs shit into law?! Gun rights expanded under Obama?! How so? Because you're allowed to bring guns into national forests (but not hunt). Oh man, do I feel free!

The fact that you refer to a right granted by our constitution as a "hobby' is proof positive that I shouldn't be wasting my time on you.

Originally Posted by dohdough You posted a video with a questionable title. Don't blame me for disseminating your sources; blame yourself for putting out heavily biased ones.

That's right, it was the title I wanted you to read. I hope nobody watched the video, just read the title! Don't worry about the part where Obama says we need another AWB, just the title please. What a joke.

Originally Posted by dohdough So maybe he was a better shot and had guns that didn't jam up on him? A hi cap mag isn't the only thing that defines what an assault weapon is? No shit and that wasn't my point? You can't deny the fact that smaller mags reduce the possibility of more people being harmed than bigger mags. It's a simple math thing.

And yet here you are, face to face with proof that the math doesn't add up. Oh yeah, he was just a better shot. Right.

Originally Posted by dohdough This is the biggest ever. I bet you don't extend that sentiment to social services like welfare.

Where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to other people's money? Look at you change the subject. It's cute. Please, go on about how wanting to keep what you've earned is evil, but thinking you're entitled to what others have earned is a-ok.

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars Oh...my...once again, you're bringing up shit that has nothing to do with the conversation. Comparing MA's laws to NY? Ridiculous. Again, what's your point? Gun laws are better in NY than they are in China, so I should be happy just because I don't need a permit for long guns and (snort) ammo? Yes, I'm very glad that our overlords don't require a permit to exercise ALL of my right to own guns, just handguns. Thank you so, so much.

You're the one that made it about NY; not me. If you didn't want the discussion to head in that direction, you shouldn't have brought it up as a defense. You wanted to talk about a possible new AWB and the last time I checked, NY and MA would be subject to it. The only tyranny you're living under is in your own head. You're being a ing drama queen.

Are you seriously claiming that the NRA and gun companies have more pull than the guy who signs shit into law?! Gun rights expanded under Obama?! How so? Because you're allowed to bring guns into national forests (but not hunt). Oh man, do I feel free!

He also allowed the ban to expire and if you can't see how hunting in national parks is an issue, you're not as smart as you think you are. Libertarians tend to have a real issue with overestimating their intellectual rigor.

Not to mention that there's more to law making than a president putting his signature on it. I'm making a deeper argument here and you're too wrapped up in your ideology to address it.

The fact that you refer to a right granted by our constitution as a "hobby' is proof positive that I shouldn't be wasting my time on you.

Is that Mosin and Sterling for self-defense? Is shooting not a ing hobby? Does that tacky ass Don't Tread on Me flag make you hard or something?

I'm not the only pointing a gun to your head to reply to my posts, buddy.

That's right, it was the title I wanted you to read. I hope nobody watched the video, just read the title! Don't worry about the part where Obama says we need another AWB, just the title please. What a joke.

And if Romney was elected, he said he'd do the same thing. But hey, if you think any idiot off the street should be able to purchase any gun of any type in an unrestricted manner because you have a fetish for the mythology of the Constitution, I'm not the one with extreme views. Obama was talking more about background checks and capacity for enhanced regulation anyways, but the soundbite is so much more easier to get faux indignant about.

And yet here you are, face to face with proof that the math doesn't add up. Oh yeah, he was just a better shot. Right.

Re-read that post because I think you're having problems with reading comprehension.

Where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to other people's money? Look at you change the subject. It's cute. Please, go on about how wanting to keep what you've earned is evil, but thinking you're entitled to what others have earned is a-ok.

LOLZ...it's hilarious that you want to use the Constitution as your defense for this when you don't know what's in it. Here's a hint: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

I love it when libertarians bring up the Constitution as if they have any clue what's in it.

If you're so ing smart and THE GOVERNMENT! is holding you back, why not just move your ass to Somalia. It's a libertarian paradise. No government to say you can't dump toxic waste in a river or the types of weapons you can buy. Oh lemme guess why not: you happen to like the amenities that our collective taxes pay for...which would make you...wait for it...a statist too!

But thanks for making vs. exciting again. It's been a while since we've had a true-believer. Although, I find it hilarious that you weren't here to break up any conservative circle-jerks since your last departure considering how much you loved to break up the liberal ones. Care to respond to any of my other posts directed at you from before you disappeared?

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars Another retard who thinks we have the second amendment for hunting.

So, how long will it be this time? You stay around for a week? 2 maybe? you pop in here every now and then to shout I WANT MAH GUNZ!!!!!! and then slink back off to haunt us again at a later date and time. You don't need an assault weapon, I don't need an assault weapon. Nobody needs them aside from people fighting other people with assault weapons, the military.

What's wrong, your pussy ass think you can't get it done with a handgun or shotgun like any sensible person looking to protect their home? You need a 30 round magazine to protect your house? Get a grip.

Keep on thinking that you're somehow making a statement to big gubment, I've got news for you, if they wanted your guns there isn't a damn thing you could do about it. They've got more guns and ammo than you'll ever have.

Like I said though, keep driving up the stock prices of these gun companies, make me money.

Originally Posted by Clak So, how long will it be this time? You stay around for a week? 2 maybe? you pop in here every now and then to shout I WANT MAH GUNZ!!!!!! and then slink back off to haunt us again at a later date and time. You don't need an assault weapon, I don't need an assault weapon. Nobody needs them aside from people fighting other people with assault weapons, the military. What's wrong, your pussy ass think you can't get it done with a handgun or shotgun like any sensible person looking to protect their home? You need a 30 round magazine to protect your house? Get a grip. Keep on thinking that you're somehow making a statement to big gubment, I've got news for you, if they wanted your guns there isn't a damn thing you could do about it. They've got more guns and ammo than you'll ever have. Like I said though, keep driving up the stock prices of these gun companies, make me money.

Hilarious. So I have to be here 24/7? I have a life. You should try one sometime.

Hey dumbass, we don't have what the military has. They have select fire weapons, we have semi-automatic weapons! Just because they look similar doesn't make them the same, no matter how much statists perpetuate the lie.

Luckily, the life that I do live isn't dictated by what Clak thinks I need. Unlike you, I believe that decision falls with me, right? Right to choose and all?

I'm glad you exposed the truth behind all this. Statists like you embrace the nanny state and relish the idea that they have all the guns. That way, when the state tries to tell us what's best for us, resistance will be an impossibility, and their monopoly on violence will continue.

Maybe you're right about them having more guns an ammo than us, but that malady won't be solved with us having fewer guns. I'll keep my AWs and take my chances.

Don't want an AW? Don't have one.

What is it lately with these OT trolls? Maybe we should start posting stupid shit in your sand box as well.

Ha ha, that classic cop-out. "I don't like what you're saying therefore TROLL!"

You're more than welcome to the OTT. As you can tell by Krakrabbit, we've lowered our standards.