Jump to content

"Why does anyone need to own that"?

Rate this topic


fishnmagician

Recommended Posts


I am pro gun ownership. I think every state should allow responsible individuals to carry a concealed weapon. That being said, I am not in favor of citizens owning automatic weapons in the US. I think our military and our police absolutely should have access.



 



I am a hunter. Have hunted my entire life. Have been stalked by mountain lions. No matter what anyone says, you do not need an automatic weapon to hunt. If you do, then you SUCK as a hunter. Target practice? I think we can sacrifice that to keep those weapons off of the street.



 



I would gladly make this trade...



 Make it easier for law abiding citizens to get a carry permit in exchange for losing the ability to buy automatic weapons.


 

 

You are just a dirty, smelly fisherman. If a hot girl is making eye contact with you, she is probably a hooker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok,

what is the purpose of that weapon beyond a high body count,

you said people from the military were familiar with it?

 

why do they use them in the military?

 

 

Why does that gun cause a higher body count?

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reliable at doing what?

 

Firing.

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pro gun ownership. I think every state should allow responsible individuals to carry a concealed weapon. That being said, I am not in favor of citizens owning automatic weapons in the US. I think our military and our police absolutely should have access.

 

I am a hunter. Have hunted my entire life. Have been stalked by mountain lions. No matter what anyone says, you do not need an automatic weapon to hunt. If you do, then you SUCK as a hunter. Target practice? I think we can sacrifice that to keep those weapons off of the street.

 

I would gladly make this trade...

 Make it easier for law abiding citizens to get a carry permit in exchange for losing the ability to buy automatic weapons.

 

The Second Amendment ain't about hunting.

 

Read the Heller vs. D.C. decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:

Originally Posted by EricJ View Post


I am pro gun ownership. I think every state should allow responsible individuals to carry a concealed weapon. That being said, I am not in favor of citizens owning automatic weapons in the US. I think our military and our police absolutely should have access.



 



I am a hunter. Have hunted my entire life. Have been stalked by mountain lions. No matter what anyone says, you do not need an automatic weapon to hunt. If you do, then you SUCK as a hunter. Target practice? I think we can sacrifice that to keep those weapons off of the street.



 



I would gladly make this trade...



 Make it easier for law abiding citizens to get a carry permit in exchange for losing the ability to buy automatic weapons.





 



 



Ultimately I think this is the point my wife and many other Soccer Moms will be making.



 



While you can use assault weapons in a legal fashion,



their purpose,



and why they are used in the military,



is to enable you to kill many people quickly,



that's the purpose of that weapon.



 



not self defense,



not hunting,



 



it's about killing lots of people quickly,



'



and paranoid gun nuts are going to have to be able to convince these Soccer Moms that our Government is actually a bigger threat to us than the nut jobs who are killing our kids.



 



and I don't think they can.


Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need (except to keep the Irish at bay) alcohol?

Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year

 

 

 

updated 6/25/2005 1:09:32 PM ET MSNBC

 

 

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.

 

 

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.

 

Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

 

Researchers considered any man who averaged more than two drinks per day or more than four drinks per occasion to be an excessive drinker. For women it was more than one drink per day or more than three drinks per occasion.

 

“These results emphasize the importance of adopting effective strategies to reduce excessive drinking, including increasing alcohol excise taxes and screening for alcohol misuse in clinical settings,” the study said.

 

Men accounted for 72 percent of the excessive drinking deaths in 2001, and those 21 and younger made up 6 percent of the death toll.

 

Light or moderate drinking can benefit a person’s health, but heavy drinking increases the risk of high blood pressure, heart disorders, certain cancers and liver disease.

 

Excessive drinkers are also more likely to die in car accidents. The United States aims to cut the rate of alcohol-related driving fatalities to 4 deaths per 100,000 people by 2010, a 32 percent drop from 1998.

 

 

:v:

"I came into this world naked, screaming at the top of my lungs, and covered in someone else's blood. I got no problem leaving it that way."
Who can hope to be safe? Who sufficiently cautious? Guard himself as he may, every moment's an ambush. Horace

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FnM, banning AR-15 style (which are not automatic btw), won't do much to stop mass killings IMO. It will make people feel good for awhile, but that's about it. Timothy McVie racked up a pretty big body count without an AR-15. It wouldn't affect me one way or the other if they were banned, since I have no desire to own one, but banning them wouldn't change much IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ultimately I think this is the point my wife and many other Soccer Moms will be making.

 

While you can use assault weapons in a legal fashion,

their purpose,

and why they are used in the military,

is to enable you to kill many people quickly,

that's the purpose of that weapon.

 

not self defense,

not hunting,

 

it's about killing lots of people quickly,

'

and paranoid gun nuts are going to have to be able to convince these Soccer Moms that our Government is actually a bigger threat to us than the nut jobs who are killing our kids.

 

and I don't think they can.

 

 

Every gun has been used in the Military. How is it possible you don't understand that?

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:

Originally Posted by fishweewee View Post

The Second Amendment ain't about hunting.

Read the Heller vs. D.C. decision.



 



I think you guys need to rethink your rhetoric.



 



I think you'd better rethink your strategy too.



 



2A has had rulings before,



other ruling may reinterpret them.



barring that you'd better worry about Sufficient numbers of Soccer moms getting the votes necessary to force an amendment.


Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A picture is worth a thousand words, right?

 

 

My answer: So that this scene never happens to me or my family with out me having to means to attempt to prevent it.

 

 

1000

 

 

An improbability is not an impossibilty.

 

 

 

 

From JPFO, March 4, 2010:

 

 

In a dissent in a 2003 gun case, Appeals Court Judge Alex Kosinski laid out his views on the Second Amendment and tyranny. "The simple truth – born of experience – is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people," he wrote.

 

"If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars," Judge Kosinski said.

 

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision," he added. "One designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

"Who is John Galt?"
Who?
You?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One poster above said "so this NEVER" happens to me.

 

On another thread when I asked if having a gun in the home GUARANTEED safety, several responses were in the negative.

 

So which one is it? If they cannot GUARANTEE your safety how can you put so much faith in them? You don't get a second chance in a home invasion. You CERTAINLY don't stand a chance against a well-armed government invading your home. Do you really live with the fear this may happen to you?

 

For the record I believe those who say guns DON'T guarantee safety but I find it humorous to see those who do fight so strongly with this as a reason.

<p><p></p></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ultimately I think this is the point my wife and many other Soccer Moms will be making.

 

While you can use assault weapons in a legal fashion,

their purpose,

and why they are used in the military,

is to enable you to kill many people quickly,

that's the purpose of that weapon.

 

You can kill a lot of people quickley with a semi auto shotgun too. An "assault" is an "assault". You can make any weapon into an "assault" weapon. Like in the other thread, "senseless killing" doesn't really mean much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...