You're still doing the straw man fallacy.
that was not an argument, it was sarcasm.
my argument is the second amendment is way out of date and needs to be revised to coincide with the world we live in today, not the one hundreds of years ago.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill
- Thread starter LAM
- Start date
that was not an argument, it was sarcasm.
my argument is the second amendment is way out of date and needs to be revised to coincide with the world we live in today, not the one hundreds of years ago.
you need to know some Russians to get that kind of stuff. a lot of the Russian Generals were selling off tons of heavy equipment after the cold war ended. they started selling some subs to the drug lords in S. America back then. when were were in Columbia looking for Pablo you would happen upon a lot of russian small arms and light weapons but we never saw anything heavy down there.
no doubt. but this is one of the inherent problems with language and it all being open to interpretation. the US fed gov has never made a formal definition as this would paint them into a corner. leaving it open allows for changes to be made. technically an RPG is considered a small arm as it can be carried by a single troop. so by definition they should be legal for sale to all that can legally purchase them with out the need for a special license.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
And what should that be? No rifles? Okay, say we ban those. What's your stance on hand guns when those are what's used for murderous rampages?
The bill of rights, I think it speaks of natural rights, what's more of a naural right than to enjoy yourself with a game of lawn darts.
But that guy with the great foresightedness, Patrick Henry whom I happen to agree with by the way, he sure called it boy.
and with that, i'm out!
Last edited:
I would also like some LAW's (light anti-tank weapons), are those legal?
If not they should be I need to blow some shit up!
Oh, and some hand grenades, those will come in handy too!
Have either of you served in the military? if not STFU because you don't know what you're talking about.
I have driven tanks, shot LAW's, shot M-60's, threw live grenades, etc. no civilian needs military style weapons, we have our awesome government to protect us form all of this "terrorism" remember.
The days of militias are far gone, the second amendment needs to be revised.
Yeah, cause since it's inception things sure have changed alright, like not just white men being able to vote.
I see no reason for a civilian to possess a fully automatic weapon, maybe if you were at the the theater shooting here in Colorado last year you would feel the same.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
So it's not okay to be killed with an assault rifle, but it is okay to be killed with a hand gun or another type of rifle?
Did I say that?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I was asking. So is it?
As a guy who talks about being former military you know that AR's are not fully automatic weapons. don't you? no wonder colorado just passed some ridiculous gun control laws due to knee jerk reactions that will not make you guys safer.
Prince, you are a smart guy. it kills me what side of this issue you are falling on. super surprising.
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously while the trigger is pressed; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.
Tell me one reason why you think non-military, US citizens need to have access to or own this type of weapon? and please don't regurgitate the second amendment.
I am all for self defense, I own a 9mm handgun and a 12gauge shotgun, but I think there needs to be limitations put on the type of weapons that are legally available.
u r just trying to bait me.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I'm just asking a question. If we ban assault rifles, and people start doing their massacres with other types of guns, do just let those slide? Or do we ban those too?
There are limitations placed upon the type of weapons that are legally available. We aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons. we aren't allowed to own RPG's either. so it seems that limitations are already placed upon us. The reason why I don't agree we should have more is that they won't make us safer, and taking away more rights is the next step to a full ban. I draw the line here because if we allow this the anti-gun retards will keep pushing for more.
And by your definition of assault rifle AR's do not meet those requirements. Tell me other than look why are AR's so bad while Ruger 10 22 are ok, or Remington model 750?
AR's make great varmint rifles. They are also used in very popular 3 gun competition. so that's two reasons.
Tell me something. it seems pretty messed up that an argument for anything would start off with don't use the second amendment. Tell me why you should be able to own this website, but don't use the first amendment. It is outdated and really only covers print media because the founders had no idea that the web would ever be invented.
she will never shut up. This was a tactical change of direction for the anti-gunners. By getting rid of the assault weapon ban they are going to try and pass the other stuff as a compromise. then try the assault weapon ban from another angle. this is a very minor victory.
The Patriot Act, The NDAA, and obama's lawyer saying it's ok to use drones on civilians on US soil are all further proof we need to keep all of the rights in the bill of rights especially the second intact. I've never seen more reason for the United States Citizens to be able to protect themselves from their own government than the time we live in
It's not the fact that its a gun, it's the fact that these types of weapons were designed to kill many people quickly!
I would also like some LAW's (light anti-tank weapons), are those legal?
If not they should be I need to blow some shit up!
Oh, and some hand grenades, those will come in handy too!
Have either of you served in the military? if not STFU because you don't know what you're talking about.
I have driven tanks, shot LAW's, shot M-60's, threw live grenades, etc. no civilian needs military style weapons, we have our awesome government to protect us form all of this "terrorism" remember.
The days of militias are far gone, the second amendment needs to be revised.
you don't vote, so why don't you stfu? you have no legitimacy on govt issues. you're nothing but a hollow voice that doesn't back up what you stand for.
Exactly, and there are no guns that will save u if u are marked for termination by a drone, u will be dead almost instantly!
So I ask u again why do US citizens need to have assault rifles? Not for hunting or self defense, they r overkill for that purpose. And they certainly won't help fighting a drone attack.
This is the worst argument i've ever heard against AR's. All guns are designed to kill.
Is that really what I just said?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Ergo, you're more tolerant of massacres so long as they're not done with assault rifles.
open your eyes prince. i've already given 2 reasons. if you missed those go back and read em again. They aren't overkill for varmint hunting. and they are great in 3 gun competition.
the strength of armed citizens against their government is in their numbers. But take those small arms away and the military force it takes to control the population shrinks significantly. As of right now The US military could not occupy and control the united states. even with all it's drones. Disarm us, and it could easily.
So our government/military can't control the entire country but they can disarm us? Hmmm, and that would be enforced by whom and how?
Nope, did not say that either.
Why? Because I own this place and feel like giving my opinion.
Is that ok with u?
you can give your hollow opinions that have no meaning, I'll let you do that for now. if I don't like your future opinions, im gonna stick your head in a toilet filled with turds and then flush it. maybe that'll knock some sense into you.
Last edited:
