Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

According to Obama administration the 223 is bad ammo, but considering its never been used to kill a police officer, why all the sudden need to take it away from us. Literally a police officer has never been killed with this type of round.

For starters the 223 is a widely used round used for sporting and hunting enthusiasts. Its the most common form of ammo in civilian and military sectors and the cheapest round to fire.

The fact that this round needs to be ban now because Obama could not ban the Ar-15 is unconstitutional.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/zero-cops-killed-by-obamas-bad-ammo/

http://news.yahoo.com/saf-authorizes-court-action-223-ammo-ban-implemented-192700817.html

Maybe Obama tried using it to hunt turkeys and got burned.

****ing turkeys...indestructible with all those feathers.

Edit: Wait, I'm thinking of the .22. My poor joke.

How is it "unconstitutional"?

Is it similar in saying banning .50cal tank penetrating rounds/rifles? What about banning RPGs, claymores, SAMs etc? Where do you draw the line on "a right to bear arms" is what I'm asking?

I wouldn't cry too much though, the firearms industry will likely replace it with an alternative that isn't armor-piercing rated as there's money to be lost/made

Why the hell should any civilian be wielding an AR15 assault rifle? At best a handgun or revolver for personal protection, and a hunting rifle. You shouldn't need anything beyond that unless you're taking on a mercenary team.

The ban hasn't happened yet, it's just talks and may not actually happen. So what we'll have is a bunch of alarmist going out and stockpiling the 223round while Freedom Group and such laugh and rack in a huge profit for the quarter.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Why the hell should any civilian be wielding an AR15 assault rifle? At best a handgun or revolver for personal protection, and a hunting rifle. You shouldn't need anything beyond that unless you're taking on a mercenary team.

Actually AR-15 are the most common sports rifle in America. Since you are not a gun owner or a hunter or sports enthusiast I could expect you to understand.

Originally posted by Robtard
The ban hasn't happened yet, it's just talks and may not actually happen. So what we'll have is a bunch of alarmist going out and stockpiling the 223round while Freedom Group and such laugh and rack in a huge profit for the quarter.

But wait don't you want to defend yourself if you have to?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
But wait don't you want to defend yourself if you have to?

My fist are like granite, my elbows like pick-hammers, brah

But if I felt insecure, a handgun or even a shotgun for the home are a far more sensible alternate to an assault rifle

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Actually AR-15 are the most common sports rifle in America. Since you are not a gun owner or a hunter or sports enthusiast I could expect you to understand.

What do you mean by "sports" exactly?

Competitive shooting?

Because I can't believe an AR15 is a particularly great/necessary hunting rifle.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Actually AR-15 are the most common sports rifle in America. Since you are not a gun owner or a hunter or sports enthusiast I could expect you to understand.

Please inform me what animal requires nothing less than an AR15 to take it down. Since you are a gun owner, hunter, and sports enthusiast, I am sure you can enlighten me.

Originally posted by -Pr-
What do you mean by "sports" exactly?

Competitive shooting?

Because I can't believe an AR15 is a particularly great/necessary hunting rifle.



"Sports Rifle" sounds a lot less scary than "Assault Rifle", it's to help stop another Federal Assault Weapons Ban like we had in 1994.

Because when some wacko shoots up a school, the gun industry hates hearing words like 'assailant used a high powered assault rifle' on the news.

Whenever I think about these attempts to allow civilians to own assault rifles, I just think back to Sandy Hook and the case of the girl killing her instructor with an Uzi. Why endorse ownership of such dangerous weaponry? The only reason I can think of is that deep down some are paranoid the government will go Norsefire on them, and they want weapons to arm the rebellion.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Sports Rifle" sounds a lot less scary than "Assault Rifle", it's to help stop another Federal Assault Weapons Ban like we had in 1994.

Because when some wacko shoots up a school, the gun industry hates hearing words like 'assailant used a high powered assault rifle' on the news.

Oh... Well ****.

So it's a nicer name for assault rifle. Wow.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Please inform me what animal requires nothing less than an AR15 to take it down. Since you are a gun owner, hunter, and sports enthusiast, I am sure you can enlighten me.

There are many competitors that like shooting for sport and for money. Many post military guys like myself get out and like to enter into those types of sports. We used M-4's in the military and an AR-15 is very similar to what we used while in service.

Also you can hunt with Ar-15's, you don't have to have a hunting rifle to
"hunt." You can hunt with many different things.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh... Well ****.

So it's a nicer name for assault rifle. Wow.

You seem to be exited.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You seem to be exited.

More like somewhat disgusted.

Really don't get why you need that kind of weaponry as a civilian, tbh.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
There are many competitors that like shooting for sport and for money. Many post military guys like myself get out and like to enter into those types of sports. We used M-4's in the military and an AR-15 is very similar to what we used while in service.

Also you can hunt with Ar-15's, you don't have to have a hunting rifle to
"hunt." You can hunt with many different things.
Yeah, but most real hunters I know don't consider it sporting to use a gun with a 15, 20, or 30 round clip to hunt deer.

Just because you "can" use an assault rifle to hunt doesn't mean you should or that you need to. Also no one "needs" to use assault rifles in sport shooting. it's an entirely frivolous activity. As for home defense, I can't imagine any scenario where an assault rifle is better than a pump shotgun, unless you plan on getting into a gun battle from your porch with someone at the end of your street. So, basically there is no good argument for citizens having assault weapons but (in the words of Jim Jeffries) "**** off, i like guns"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, but most real hunters I know don't consider it sporting to use a gun with a 15, 20, or 30 round clip to hunt deer.

Just because you "can" use an assault rifle to hunt doesn't mean you should or that you need to. Also no one "needs" to use assault rifles in sport shooting. it's an entirely frivolous activity. As for home defense, I can't imagine any scenario where an assault rifle is better than a pump shotgun, unless you plan on getting into a gun battle from your porch with someone at the end of your street. So, basically there is no good argument for citizens having assault weapons but (in the words of Jim Jeffries) "**** off, i like guns"

Exactly; that aussie bastard got it right on the money.

b-but m-muh terrorists

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, but most real hunters I know don't consider it sporting to use a gun with a 15, 20, or 30 round clip to hunt deer.

Just because you "can" use an assault rifle to hunt doesn't mean you should or that you need to. Also no one "needs" to use assault rifles in sport shooting. it's an entirely frivolous activity. As for home defense, I can't imagine any scenario where an assault rifle is better than a pump shotgun, unless you plan on getting into a gun battle from your porch with someone at the end of your street. So, basically there is no good argument for citizens having assault weapons but (in the words of Jim Jeffries) "**** off, i like guns"


I think Ted Nugent had a better quote directed at Obama. Time would like it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Exactly; that aussie bastard got it right on the money.

Leave my mother outta this!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, but most real hunters I know don't consider it sporting to use a gun with a 15, 20, or 30 round clip to hunt deer.

Just because you "can" use an assault rifle to hunt doesn't mean you should or that you need to. Also no one "needs" to use assault rifles in sport shooting. it's an entirely frivolous activity. As for home defense, I can't imagine any scenario where an assault rifle is better than a pump shotgun, unless you plan on getting into a gun battle from your porch with someone at the end of your street. So, basically there is no good argument for citizens having assault weapons but (in the words of Jim Jeffries) "**** off, i like guns"

Ah see the words "doesn't mean you should" and "frivolous activity" don't fit into the words free will, If someone wants to hunt with a 15 round magazine or shoot competitively that is their right. I know you don't like freedoms or constitution, and according to you police are overpowered yet, you want to disarm civilian population, how does that make any sense?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Leave my mother outta this!



Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ah see the words "doesn't mean you should" and "frivolous activity" don't fit into the words free will, If someone wants to hunt with a 15 round magazine or shoot competitively that is their right. I know you don't like freedoms or constitution, and according to you police are overpowered yet, you want to disarm civilian population, how does that make any sense?

Come on; don't pretend this is about freedom or the constitution. Slavery was part of your constitution too, but your leaders eventually saw sense.

Nobody said anything about disarming people. There are still plenty of guns out there that aren't assault rifles.

You like guns. That's fine. Everyone likes something.

Originally posted by -Pr-




Come on; don't pretend this is about freedom or the constitution. Slavery was part of your constitution too, but your leaders eventually saw sense.

Nobody said anything about disarming people. There are still plenty of guns out there that aren't assault rifles.

You don't even live here, quit hating. And secondly have you even fired a AR. I take it you and the rest of the whiners have not, they are actually really fun.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You don't even live here, quit hating. And secondly have you even fired a AR. I take it you and the rest of the whiners have not, they are actually really fun.

Who said I was hating?

I haven't fired an assault rifle, no. Pistols, yes. And I treated them like the deadly weapons they are, not the toys some people see them as.

How is it whining, exactly?

I don't see the problem on allowing people to shoot Assault Rifles in an enclosed and controlled environment. I can see how allowing those weapons to be held at home can raise a few eyebrows. How many kinds of weapons should you be allowed to carry at home? It's pretty hard to make a clear cut response to that.

Originally posted by Bentley
I don't see the problem on allowing people to shoot Assault Rifles in an enclosed and controlled environment. I can see how allowing those weapons to be held at home can raise a few eyebrows. How many kinds of weapons should you be allowed to carry at home? It's pretty hard to make a clear cut response to that.


That's kinda the contention I have.
Sure ok...have a hobby, buy an AR for rec sports or hunting...whatever.

But the moment you feel your life is in danger at home...you'll reach & arm yourself with the same AR.
I don't want to imagine what even one stray shot in a neighbourhood could potentially do.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You don't even live here, quit hating. And secondly have you even fired a AR. I take it you and the rest of the whiners have not, they are actually really fun.

I would imagine firing an RPG and blowing something up like an abandoned car would be immense levels of fun as well. See?

Originally posted by -Pr-


Come on; don't pretend this is about freedom or the constitution. Slavery was part of your constitution too, but your leaders eventually saw sense.

Nobody said anything about disarming people. There are still plenty of guns out there that aren't assault rifles.

You like guns. That's fine. Everyone likes something.

This is still my favorite gun-laws commercial. Right to the point.

LORVfnFtcH0

Originally posted by Robtard
I would imagine firing an RPG and blowing something up like an abandoned car would be immense levels of fun as well. See?

Big difference btw and RPG and a Ar..dont be ignorant.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Big difference btw and RPG and a Ar..dont be ignorant.

Some similarities too, both can be used to easily kill a lot of people, the AR15 is just cheaper and easier to conceal

Originally posted by Robtard
Some similarities too, both can be used to easily kill a lot of people, the AR15 is just cheaper and easier to conceal

Yes and how many people are running around with AR-15's and killing a lot of people?

-The Sandy Hook massacre was with an AR15 variant, 25ish dead, iirc

-Shooting in Colorado during 'The Dark Knight' involved an AR15, forget how many were killed

Are we really going to argue that an assault rifle like the AR15(cos by any other name, it kills just as sweet) which the M16 was based off isn't great at killing a lot of people in a short amount of time if that were one's goal?

You and I know know as well as the FBI admitted sandy hook was a hoax.

So one incident involving an AR with the millions sold every year and you think they should be outlawed. Hahahaha

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You and I know know as well as the FBI admitted sandy hook was a hoax.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You and I know know as well as the FBI admitted sandy hook was a hoax.

So one incident involving an AR with the millions sold every year and you think they should be outlawed. Hahahaha

Source? Cos that's news too me

That was all I could think of off the top of my head. I guess I could google "assault rifle massacres". Not just the AR15, assault rifles in general, be a good start.

They me ask you though, how many people would need to die on a yearly basis or total before a ban would be warranted in your mind?

Originally posted by Robtard
This is still my favorite gun-laws commercial. Right to the point.

LORVfnFtcH0

Looks pretty spot on to me.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You and I know know as well as the FBI admitted sandy hook was a hoax.

So one incident involving an AR with the millions sold every year and you think they should be outlawed. Hahahaha

You still haven't explained why civilians should be allowed to use assault rifles.

Genuinely asking here.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You and I know know as well as the FBI admitted sandy hook was a hoax.

So one incident involving an AR with the millions sold every year and you think they should be outlawed. Hahahaha

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

Originally posted by -Pr-
Looks pretty spot on to me.



You still haven't explained why civilians should be allowed to use assault rifles.

Genuinely asking here.



http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

Snopes...lol.

Gimmie a break

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/14/the-sandy-hook-hoax-how-we-know-it-didnt-happen/

And civilians should have Ar-15 because we damn well can. Thats whats great about America.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Snopes...lol.

Gimmie a break

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/14/the-sandy-hook-hoax-how-we-know-it-didnt-happen/

Your site somehow has more validity than one that's been debunking false stories for years?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
And civilians should have Ar-15 because we damn well can. Thats whats great about America.

So you want it because you want it. At least you're honest.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Your site somehow has more validity than one that's been debunking false stories for years?



So you want it because you want it. At least you're honest.

People drink and do drugs and smoke cigaretts because they want too. Those kill hundreds of thousands a year. But its ok because thats what people want to do. Drugs and alcohol break families apart, hell the first two letters of AT is from those substances. Its harder and harder to get guns these days especially Ar's. The people that qualify for them literally have to have clean records with no arrests, or drug charges or past criminal activity. I feel safer knowing the good guys have the guns like myself

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
People drink and do drugs and smoke cigaretts because they want too. Those kill hundreds of thousands a year. But its ok because thats what people want to do. Drugs and alcohol break families apart, hell the first two letters of AT is from those substances. Its harder and harder to get guns these days especially Ar's. The people that qualify for them literally have to have clean records with no arrests, or drug charges or past criminal activity. I feel safer knowing the good guys have the guns like myself

An accident with a glass of whiskey or a cigarette won't end my life. A gun will.

You're trying to basically justify it by saying "other dangerous stuff exists, so this should too". That's not great logic.

I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to carry assault rifles.

Pistols? Fine. Shotguns? No problem. But assault rifles? Seriously, i'm curious.

there's a reason they let you drive a car, even a hummer, but won't let you drive a tank down the highway, but people are supposed to feel safe when jimmy next door has a bunch of assault rifles and a bit of an attitude problem?

Originally posted by -Pr-
An accident with a glass of whiskey or a cigarette won't end my life. A gun will.

You're trying to basically justify it by saying "other dangerous stuff exists, so this should too". That's not great logic.

I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to carry assault rifles.

Pistols? Fine. Shotguns? No problem. But assault rifles? Seriously, i'm curious.

there's a reason they let you drive a car, even a hummer, but won't let you drive a tank down the highway, but people are supposed to feel safe when jimmy next door has a bunch of assault rifles and a bit of an attitude problem?

Nah not justifying it. I'm saying tons of things that kill you are legal and dangerous things are always around if they are legal or not.

Nah, there are more handgun related deaths then any other weapon. You don't see those getting banned. A gun is a gun.

Originally posted by -Pr-
An accident with a glass of whiskey or a cigarette won't end my life. A gun will.

Well...

Car accident

Fire.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Nah not justifying it. I'm saying tons of things that kill you are legal and dangerous things are always around if they are legal or not.

Nah, there are more handgun related deaths then any other weapon. You don't see those getting banned. A gun is a gun.

So because there are bad things already, it's okay to have more bad things, not less?

You sure that's not because handguns outnumber assault rifles by such an obscene amount? And why not just ban all guns, then?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well...

Car accident

Fire.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm talking about accidents other people have, outside of my own home. Unless of course you mean they're gonna drive through my front wall.

The moment I read a news article of an alcoholic or a drug addict breaking into a school & forcing innocents to drink, chain smoke or OD themselves to deaths then I'll under your logic of comparing a loaded weapon to narcotics.

Time Immemorial, keep conspiracy talk out of here unless you want the thread moved to the conspiracy section.

Honestly, I don't necessarily think guns themselves should be banned. It's an American right to bear arms, and while I think it's not necessarily needed, it is part of their culture and their history.

What worries me is the problem America seems to have guns. I've lived in Canada, where people own guns. I've gone to ranges, and I will admit, it was a lot of fun. But at no point did I ever forget that I was holding a loaded weapon that could end a life with the simplest of gestures.

The perception some Americans give off is that they have some divine right, without any kind of training or care, to own a gun. Are there responsible gun owners? Of course there are. There are just so many other people that aren't. I know this and I'm an outsider, so why are so many Americans resistant to stricter gun legislation.

Obama has actually been softer in gun lobbies than his predecessors, from what I've read.

I've seen cars mentioned, but tbh, that's a horrible comparison. One, in most civilised countries, you have to own a license to own a car. How do you get a license? You have to pass an exam. A background check is NOT an exam. Add to that, yes, there are car accidents, but cars are a necessity for many people, or else they can't get to their jobs.

I know a lot of Americans would love to pretend that countries without guns are some sort of post-apocalyptic wastelands where only the strong survive, but really, we're just fine. And I'm from and live in a country that once took up arms to fight the English.

You want to own a gun? Fine. Cool. Build a collection even. Hell, assuming I settle in Canada, I may actually purchase one at some point.

I just don't get why America seems to be so different from all the other countries that have them and yet experience a fraction of the gun crime. Racism? Classism? Ignorance? Stupidity? That's a larger question anyway, and is somewhat off-topic.

I just want to know why anyone thinks it's all right to arm civilians with weapons that belong in the hands of the military. The American police are already turning themselves in to small armies; civilians having them just seems like escalation to me, and that can only end badly imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Honestly, I don't necessarily think guns themselves should be banned. It's an American right to bear arms, and while I think it's not necessarily needed, it is part of their culture and their history.

What worries me is the problem America seems to have guns. I've lived in Canada, where people own guns. I've gone to ranges, and I will admit, it was a lot of fun. But at no point did I ever forget that I was holding a loaded weapon that could end a life with the simplest of gestures.

The perception some Americans give off is that they have some divine right, without any kind of training or care, to own a gun. Are there responsible gun owners? Of course there are. There are just so many other people that aren't. I know this and I'm an outsider, so why are so many Americans resistant to stricter gun legislation.

Obama has actually been softer in gun lobbies than his predecessors, from what I've read.

I've seen cars mentioned, but tbh, that's a horrible comparison. One, in most civilised countries, you have to own a license to own a car. How do you get a license? You have to pass an exam. A background check is NOT an exam. Add to that, yes, there are car accidents, but cars are a necessity for many people, or else they can't get to their jobs.

I know a lot of Americans would love to pretend that countries without guns are some sort of post-apocalyptic wastelands where only the strong survive, but really, we're just fine. And I'm from and live in a country that once took up arms to fight the English.

You want to own a gun? Fine. Cool. Build a collection even. Hell, assuming I settle in Canada, I may actually purchase one at some point.

I just don't get why America seems to be so different from all the other countries that have them and yet experience a fraction of the gun crime. Racism? Classism? Ignorance? Stupidity? That's a larger question anyway, and is somewhat off-topic.

I just want to know why anyone thinks it's all right to arm civilians with weapons that belong in the hands of the military. The American police are already turning themselves in to small armies; civilians having them just seems like escalation to me, and that can only end badly imo.

Like I was saying earlier handguns kill thousands of people a year and are the #1 weapon used in crime. Why ban Ar-15 on the premise that they can pierce police soft body armor? Not one cop has been killed by an AR-15. If you were going to ban something on premise, sounds like the gun doing all the killing should be banned.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Like I was saying earlier handguns kill thousands of people a year and are the #1 weapon used in crime. Why ban Ar-15 on the premise that they can pierce police soft body armor? Not one cop has been killed by an AR-15. If you were going to ban something on premise, sounds like the gun doing all the killing should be banned.

Except that it being able to pierce body armour is a valid reason to have it banned. Why is it not? I'm honestly asking.

And like someone already said, mass shootings are much more easy to do with an assault rifle than a pistol.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Except that it being able to pierce body armour is a valid reason to have it banned. Why is it not? I'm honestly asking.

And like someone already said, mass shootings are much more easy to do with an assault rifle than a pistol.

You can make many other rounds and many round and calibers in production fast enough pierce body armor. Literally targeting Ar-15 is just backlash because this administration could not get the rifle banned.

Mass shootings with Ar-15 literally never happen compared to handgun shootings. Thousands of people die a year from handgun deaths. Less then 20 have died from an Ar in decades..one of the reasons is its a lot harder to get an Ar-15 then a handgun. Much more extensive background check.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You can make many other rounds and many round and calibers in production fast enough pierce body armor. Literally targeting Ar-15 is just backlash because this administration could not get the rifle banned.

Mass shootings with Ar-15 literally never happen compared to handgun shootings. Thousands of people die a year from handgun deaths. Less then 20 have died from an Ar in decades..one of the reasons is its a lot harder to get an Ar-15 then a handgun. Much more extensive background check.

How can you be so sure that's the reason? Why couldn't they get the rifle banned?

And again, how does that make it okay not to ban bullets that can pierce armour? Surely they should be trying to have less of them out there any way they can?

If that's true, then would you be fine with them banning all guns except for assault rifles that require extensive background checks?

Originally posted by Robtard
My fist are like granite, my elbows like pick-hammers, brah

But if I felt insecure, a handgun or even a shotgun for the home are a far more sensible alternate to an assault rifle

For some reason, you have a higher risk of getting arrested on your own if you defend yourself unarmed then with a gun. At least where I live, maybe its different where you live.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
For some reason, you have a higher risk of getting arrested on your own if you defend yourself unarmed then with a gun. At least where I live, maybe its different where you live.

I'm in California, the most sensible of states

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm in California, the most sensible of states

At least we agree on one thing, however that chip up your ass prevents you to be sensible about majority of other things.

Such as?

Your fashion sense, for one.

*finger snap*

Do you want me to shove that fedora up your hipster ass again? Looks like it.

Originally posted by Star428
I have purposely avoided this thread on purpose because when people start questioning our American right to bear arms or even go as far to say that guns should be banned it tends to upset me.

Indulge me with your thoughts for a moment, please.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms", do you feel that gives you the right to bear any armament you might fancy? If not, where and how do you draw the line in what type of weapon is a constitutionally given right and what is not?

The ammo ended up not getting banned cause of major opposition.

Thats a win for me.

So once again a bunch of people cried/ranted about "Mah guns!" for nothing while the gun/ammo companies laughed their ass all the way to the bank from the temp increase of sales

I wasn't going to post anything but TI is doing a horrible job of arguing against the anti-gun people in this thread.

Originally posted by -Pr-
An accident with a glass of whiskey or a cigarette won't end my life. A gun will.

What? **** no, that's wrong. More people die each year from alcohol than firearms.

88,000 people die from alcohol related deaths.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics


8,896 gun homicides in 2012.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/8902


Conclusion based on your logic: alcohol should be made illegal and gun laws should be relaxed until the numbers reach parity (if at all possible...which it is not).

And, yes, cigarettes will kill you. That's an absurd argument to make. INB4 "that wasn't my point it was that an inaminate object, bla bla bla." I know, I know.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You're trying to basically justify it by saying "other dangerous stuff exists, so this should too". That's not great logic.

It's not just great logic, is THE logic that these policies should be based on (because it either shows how slippery slope the argument is or shows why one side or the other is being treated unfairly). If alcohol, which definitely kills far more people each year, is legal with the idea that "adults should drink responsibly", then guns should be legal with the idea that "adults should use them responsibly."


Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to carry assault rifles.


Take your sentence and plug in many different things into and see how it looks:


"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to drive cars."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to use tobacco products."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want to", for allowing people to play sports."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want to", for allowing people to eat unhealthy foods."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want to", for allowing people to be commercial fishers."


Just because you don't want to do it does not mean others should not get to do those things. Owning and shooting a gun has the same common sense requirements as drinking: adults should do it responsibly. With guns, at least, kids can safely fire them under careful adult supervision...unlike alcohol and other drugs.


Originally posted by -Pr-
Pistols? Fine. Shotguns? No problem. But assault rifles? Seriously, i'm curious.

I see your question as being a problem, in and of itself. It incorrectly places Assault Rifles on a very high shelf of "scary" and "dangerous" that is very silly. All firearms (that fire slugs) are overtly and lethally dangerous. Saying that Assault Rifles must get a magical consideration when handguns shouldn't is eye-rollingly silly.


Target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, bla bla bla. Why do you care so much about what responsible adults are doing for hobbies? Let's be serious: is it really any of your business? The answer to that question is emphatically "no." It is not open for interpretation. So you're afraid of someone going on a killing spree with an assault rifle, eh? Well, killing someone with any gun is illegal. So why does it matter?

Do you think making assault rifles illegal is going to magically make killing sprees stop? "No, but it will make killing people a lot more difficult."

Cool. Let's pretend your rhetoric and people with rhetoric like yours gets their way. Now we've invested all this time into trying to prevent 8000-9000 annual deaths just because you are afraid of guns. Don't you think we could have spent our time and money on others things and prevented many more deaths?

A smart/educated person would argue against my point with the following: "You're creating a false dichotomy. It is not 'either this or that.' We can do both." Then I just direct you back to the other points: if you want to restrict gun access to not really prevent 8000-ish deaths (because you won't really prevent much with extremely strict gun laws: fact...it is not a gun control issue, it is a cultural and poverty issue), then why are you not restricting alcohol to prevent the 88,000-ish deaths? Assault rifles make up a disproportionately smaller percentage of deaths compared to other firearms (meaning, per capita, those gun deaths are not as likely from assault rifles as they are handguns).


Edit - INB4 "dadudemon mad, bro". A strong argument does not mean a person is "mad bro." It's just a strong argument.

But it isn't even a strong argument, bro

Originally posted by Robtard
But it's even a strong argument, bro

You mean to say, "But it isn't even a strong argument, bro."


In which case, alright then.

That's what I said, bro

I gave up trying to talk to these hippies and flower children.

The word liberal means "be more liberal"

However if you talk to a liberal long enough they start trying to tell you what to eat, drink, drive, wear, and the word liberty turns to slaverly.

Liberalism is the exact opposite of freedom.

Rob and most of the people here like living under the thumb of big brother and mother.

They are all sheep who just can't think of act without the government telling them what to do.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I am socialist just like my socialist God Obama.

We are going to take your guns and white women.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

"Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need."

Aka weak minded people who rely on others to provide for them.

Do you have a better way of achieving "equal opportunity and equality for all" in a society such as ours? If yes, how so?

You currently rely on the government to protect your "civil liberties and individual and human rights". If you disagree, please explain how you do so on your own.

Did you get that quote from the "I Hate Liberals" Facebook page?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you have a better way of achieving "equal opportunity and equality for all" in a society such as ours? If yes, how so?

You currently rely on the government to protect your "civil liberties and individual and human rights". If you disagree, please explain how you do so on your own.

Did you get that quote from the "I Hate Liberals" Facebook page?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=liberal

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The ammo ended up not getting banned cause of major opposition.

Thats a win for me.


Well, that's good news. I'm glad to hear that.

Originally posted by Star428
Well, that's good news. I'm glad to hear that.

Rob and Pr are crying a river now.

"DAMN I CANT BELIEVE THAT OBAMA DIDNT GET IT DONE!!!"

I don't see why Pr should really care one way or the other.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=liberal

Well sure, avoid what I asked and post a a search link that doesn't directly lead to the source of your quote.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Rob and Pr are crying a river now.

"DAMN I CANT BELIEVE THAT OBAMA DIDNT GET IT DONE!!!"

I am?

I'm a moderate Republican/Conservative.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Rob and Pr are crying a river now.

"DAMN I CANT BELIEVE THAT OBAMA DIDNT GET IT DONE!!!"

Huh?

Why would I care?

Why are you so damn testy?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Huh?

Why would I care?

Why are you so damn testy?
Because he can't separate politics from personal matters and tends to oversimplify the situation such that anyone who disagrees with him on anything must stand for everything he's against.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am?

I'm a moderate Republican/Conservative.

That's almost a good joke.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Huh?

Why would I care?

Why are you so damn testy?

Im not sweetheart

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Because he can't separate politics from personal matters and tends to oversimplify the situation such that anyone who disagrees with him on anything must stand for everything he's against.

It would be good if that was true.

Do you even lift bro?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
That's almost a good joke.

It's true

Originally posted by Robtard
It's true

You are a liberal democrate.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Im not sweetheart

Then why use names like that to try to prove it?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
It would be good if that was true.

Do you even lift bro?

Well, he kinda has a point. You seem very "us v them" for some reason. Rather than actually reaching out to people, you attack them. Why?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Then why use names like that to try to prove it?



Well, he kinda has a point. You seem very "us v them" for some reason. Rather than actually reaching out to people, you attack them. Why?

Who is Us and who is them in your eyes.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Who is Us and who is them in your eyes.

You are us, and them are the people you insist are trying to take away your special ammunition?

Isn't speaking out, reaching out?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Isn't speaking out, reaching out?

Having a conversation isn't the same as goading and baiting people, or giving them abuse just because they don't agree with you.

Oi!

PR, I apologize for my arguments being so harsh and directed at you (you just happened to make the best arguments from the other side, imo). You're not a stranger on the internet. You're a cool dude I've had the pleasure of talking to for years. You deserved a bit more respect than what I sent. So forgive the harshness of how I presented the arguments. I don't know how to make my arguments any less harsh, however.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Liberalism is the exact opposite of freedom.

In America, yes, this is spot-on accurate of most American Liberals.

Regulating the shit out of everything and micromanaging all aspects of people's lives (a nanny-state) is what being a liberal means in America. That's just stupid. That's the opposite of a liberal.


Originally posted by Time Immemorial
That's almost a good joke.

Since as far back as 2008, he told me he was a moderate. I believe him. At the time, he had no vested interest in winning an argument about being called a moderate. Some of his ideas are more similar to libertarianism than, say, Republican or Democratic conservatism.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You are a liberal democrate.

Well there's really no way I can convince you, so moving on.

But we should get along politically on some level then, since you call yourself a "democrat" as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wasn't going to post anything but TI is doing a horrible job of arguing against the anti-gun people in this thread.



What? **** no, that's wrong. More people die each year from alcohol than firearms.

88,000 people die from alcohol related deaths.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics


8,896 gun homicides in 2012.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/8902


Conclusion based on your logic: alcohol should be made illegal and gun laws should be relaxed until the numbers reach parity (if at all possible...which it is not).

And, yes, cigarettes will kill you. That's an absurd argument to make. INB4 "that wasn't my point it was that an inaminate object, bla bla bla." I know, I know.



It's not just great logic, is THE logic that these policies should be based on (because it either shows how slippery slope the argument is or shows why one side or the other is being treated unfairly). If alcohol, which definitely kills far more people each year, is legal with the idea that "adults should drink responsibly", then guns should be legal with the idea that "adults should use them responsibly."





Take your sentence and plug in many different things into and see how it looks:


"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to drive cars."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want it", for allowing people to use tobacco products."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want to", for allowing people to play sports."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want to", for allowing people to eat unhealthy foods."

"I'm still not sure what the reasoning is, other than "I want to", for allowing people to be commercial fishers."


Just because you don't want to do it does not mean others should not get to do those things. Owning and shooting a gun has the same common sense requirements as drinking: adults should do it responsibly. With guns, at least, kids can safely fire them under careful adult supervision...unlike alcohol and other drugs.




I see your question as being a problem, in and of itself. It incorrectly places Assault Rifles on a very high shelf of "scary" and "dangerous" that is very silly. All firearms (that fire slugs) are overtly and lethally dangerous. Saying that Assault Rifles must get a magical consideration when handguns shouldn't is eye-rollingly silly.


Target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, bla bla bla. Why do you care so much about what responsible adults are doing for hobbies? Let's be serious: is it really any of your business? The answer to that question is emphatically "no." It is not open for interpretation. So you're afraid of someone going on a killing spree with an assault rifle, eh? Well, killing someone with any gun is illegal. So why does it matter?

Do you think making assault rifles illegal is going to magically make killing sprees stop? "No, but it will make killing people a lot more difficult."

Cool. Let's pretend your rhetoric and people with rhetoric like yours gets their way. Now we've invested all this time into trying to prevent 8000-9000 annual deaths just because you are afraid of guns. Don't you think we could have spent our time and money on others things and prevented many more deaths?

A smart/educated person would argue against my point with the following: "You're creating a false dichotomy. It is not 'either this or that.' We can do both." Then I just direct you back to the other points: if you want to restrict gun access to not really prevent 8000-ish deaths (because you won't really prevent much with extremely strict gun laws: fact...it is not a gun control issue, it is a cultural and poverty issue), then why are you not restricting alcohol to prevent the 88,000-ish deaths? Assault rifles make up a disproportionately smaller percentage of deaths compared to other firearms (meaning, per capita, those gun deaths are not as likely from assault rifles as they are handguns).


Edit - INB4 "dadudemon mad, bro". A strong argument does not mean a person is "mad bro." It's just a strong argument. Easy, restrict both.

Not really a strong argument tbh.

Originally posted by Reflassshh
Easy, restrict both.

Not really a strong argument tbh.

Or less/equal restrictions on both.

That's what my arguments boil down to, really. So you did catch the gist of it.

Originally posted by Reflassshh
Easy, restrict both.


Yeah, doing away with the second amendment entirely sounds like a fabulous plan. Hell, while we're at it, let's just go ahead and do away with the Constitution entirely. I mean, with how so many people like you who are apathetic and don't care about protecting our rights that our forefathers set in place for a reason we're no doubt headed for a full-blown militarized police state anyway. Might as well go ahead and speed things up, right?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
It would be good if that was true.

Do you even lift bro?
I lift facts and crush evidence.

Ha!

The Nazis disarmed their citizens too so none of their citizens could fight back.




Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana (Spanish philosopher)


Wake up, sheep, before it's too late.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The only reason I can think of is that deep down some are paranoid the government will go Norsefire on them, and they want weapons to arm the rebellion.

So essentially this...

Not that I'm for "no guns", but Australia seems to be doing okay, much like other countries where it's illegal or very difficult to get guns

Originally posted by Star428
The Nazis disarmed their citizens too so none of their citizens could fight back.




Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana (Spanish philosopher)


Wake up, sheep, before it's too late.

Not nearly the same as what's being asked. That's a massive straw man and you know it.

LOL. You poor fools keep kidding yourselves all u want too. I pity you.


http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/


To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens-Adolf Hitler

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. You poor fools keep kidding yourselves all u want too. I pity you.


http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/


To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens-Adolf Hitler

That quote looks like it's more Argumentum Ad Hitlerums or the like

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp

Originally posted by Star428
The Nazis disarmed their citizens too so none of their citizens could fight back.

Wake up, sheep, before it's too late.
Lol. Germany had restricted firearms BEFORE the Nazis assumed power and then relaxed those restrictions but required owners to have permits. One of the things Hitler did after coming to power was to make it easier for Nazi Party members to own weapons.

He did restrict weapons including firearms for Jews in 1938, but let's not act as if the Nazi's rise to power and the Holocaust would have been avoided if Germany had been a country of red-blooded, God-fearing gunowners (TM) like America is.

Meanwhile, our borders are wide open and Obama is trying to allow thousands of illegal aliens to be exempt from being deported and even trying to get them to enjoy many of the benefits that honest American citizens already benefit from.

Anyone who thinks that ISIS sleeper cells aren't already here is kidding themselves. They're just patiently waiting for the right moment to strike and all the so-called "peaceful" muslims already in this country (and there's a lot) won't hesitate to help them or even join up with them when the SHTF regardless of how much they say they claim they don't support those murderers. When ISIS finally strikes (and they WILL sooner or later) I want to make sure I'm prepared. Not defenseless.




If some of you people would do some research you'd realize that the government has been openly training thousands of foreign troops right here on American soil. They've also been stockpiling tons of a special type of ammunition. Why are they doing all these things? It's obvious to me that they know sooner or later we are going to suffer an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic and they know there's nothing they can do to stop it from happening forever.


They can keep printing all the money they want to and delaying the inevitable but once the dollar loses it's status as the world's reserve currency that will no longer work. Then we're ****ed. Martial law will have to be declared and the government knows they will need all the help they can get to deal with the chaotic public. Hence, the training of all the foreign troops and the stockpiling of the special ammunition.


But, yeah. Let's just willingly hand over our only defense to the government and terrorists to make it easier for them.



I'm glad that the American Revolution wasn't fought by people like you all or else we would be living under the British still. Hell, we probably wouldn't even have stood up to King George with people like you and there wouldn't have even been a Revolution.

Isn't part of the American Dream being an immigrant who makes it for themselves after coming to America?

Oh I got it, so Star428 isn't a real person. He's like a characature of a weird xenophobic doomsday guy pulled out of a 7/10 video game from an IGN Review.

Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, doing away with the second amendment entirely sounds like a fabulous plan. Hell, while we're at it, let's just go ahead and do away with the Constitution entirely. I mean, with how so many people like you who are apathetic and don't care about protecting our rights that our forefathers set in place for a reason we're no doubt headed for a full-blown militarized police state anyway. Might as well go ahead and speed things up, right? Since when does 'restrict' equate to 'take all our weapons away'?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Or less/equal restrictions on both.

That's what my arguments boil down to, really. So you did catch the gist of it. Wouldn't less restriction make current situation even worse?

Ah ok.

Originally posted by Quincy
Oh I got it, so Star428 isn't a real person. He's like a characature of a weird xenophobic doomsday guy pulled out of a 7/10 video game from an IGN Review.






I assure you. I'm real.

Also, just want to add that Obama is fully aware that if martial law is declared he can stay in office indefinitely. Considering some of his actions, I fear that is what he wants and is even trying to make it happen.

Originally posted by Quincy
Oh I got it, so Star428 isn't a real person. He's like a characature of a weird xenophobic doomsday guy pulled out of a 7/10 video game from an IGN Review.

This creased me up

Originally posted by Star428
Also, just want to add that Obama is fully aware that if martial law is declared he can stay in office indefinitely. Considering some of his actions, I fear that is what he wants and is even trying to make it happen.

Seems like some serious fear-mongering, imo. But rest easy, friend, we have the 20th Amendment.

If something were to stop the election process such as a state of "martial law", the 20th amendment is in place to deal with a scenario of "no president-elect". Congress can elect a President once Obama's term is up.

edit: That wiki link won't work as KMC is altering the link, but you can look up the 20th Amendment

Too late to edit my post a few replies up but I misspoke when I said "thousands" of illegal aliens. It's actually "millions" of them.

Personally I am okay with more gun restrictions. I don't know if I would out right ban them but at the least I think they should be restricted in the same vein of cars. You need a permit to own one after having gone through training to use the weapon properly. Also having different levels of permits for different classes of firearms.

I don't believe every American should own a gun. Especially after two potentially fatal incidents with firearms I personally witnessed. One was a drunk/high woman deciding to take her shotgun and point at people at a party. The other being when I was a kid going hunting with my dad and his friend and their kid. The other dad allowed their child to load their gun. At which point he pointed the gun at me and made fake gun noises like he was shooting me. At that point my father took me and we walked back to camp because he was smart enough to realize a stupid dangerous situation.

At some point in American history when we A) did not have standing army, and B) most people had to hunt to for food every family needing a gun was needed. I do not believe those are viable reasons anymore.

We have a standing military and most people do not need guns for their survival or their job.

On a different point I have seen smoking and drinking advertised as some sort of counter balance to the argument of getting rid of something clearly harmful. Well why don't we ban these things first.

Let me say that we highly regulate and force penalties on alcohol. You can only drink at the age of 21. You can have many legal actions taken against you for improper use of alcohol such as drinking and driving. Also serving certain proofs of alcoholic beverages is illegal.

Smoking is also at an all time low in the US. Only an estimated 16% of adults smoke in America anymore. This is because we have constantly been exposing the bad consequences of smoking. Now less people smoke.

Also you can do multiple things at once. There is a lot of money being sunk into showing the horrible consequences of improper drinking and smoking. You can also spend time and money taking down guns as well. It's not like one issue needs to be addressed at a time.

Now I could see someone saying well if you want to limit gun related deaths do the same things you do with other vices. Show promotional material that shows the horribleness of not using guns properly. Here is where I think guns and drinking/smoking are fundamentally different and where firearms are more like vehicles. Guns require a certain level competency to operate properly much like an automobile. Where as drinking or smoking require no such thing. Which is why I feel guns should restricted more than in the vein of cars. Age limit/mandatory training that kind of thing.

As for personal protection violent crime in america is lower now than it was in the 90s yet less people own guns now then back in the 90s. Other countries seem to get along fine as well. There is no statistical link showing that having citizenship with less firearms reduces personal safety. There is also no statistical connection showing in the inverse having more guns increases personal safety.

Its funny you all have forgotten why we were given the right to bear arms. Some people should read more on American history. It has nothing to do with us having a military either.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its funny you all have forgotten why we were given the right to bear arms. Some people should read more on American history. It has nothing to do with us having a military either. Please enlighten me, while conveniently ignoring everything else in the post? Something I've seen you do multiple times in this thread.

TI is right, we have forgotten why the right to bear arms was given in the first place, so that King George III can't come in your home and live there rent free, and by God, if that's not more relevant today than anything, I don't know what is!

Giving the people arms was to prevent a out of control government that could and most likely will turn on the people and gives them a way to defend and correct the situation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
TI is right, we have forgotten why the right to bear arms was given in the first place, so that King George III can't come in your home and live there rent free, and by God, if that's not more relevant today than anything, I don't know what is!

As a person from Germany I know you know next to nothing about America or its constitution or politics. But hey you guys are real good at getting the world involved in 2 world wars.

If you knew anything about history you would know that Serbia and Poland respectively caused WW1 and 2!

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you knew anything about history you would know that Serbia and Poland respectively caused WW1 and 2!

Lol, denial does not suit you.

Ha!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Giving the people arms was to prevent a out of control government that could and most likely will turn on the people and gives them a way to defend and correct the situation. So even if that were true, there is more than one reason why that amendment was added, the other thing the Founding Fathers gave us was the ability to adapt and modify the constitution as we need for the changing times.

Like I said there is not viable reason to say every civilian needs the right to be armed. Prevent the government from taking us over? That's worked well in countries that still allow guns but still have dictatorships. I mean if you want to think having an assault rifle somehow means you can stand up to a force of tanks, planes, drones and heavily armed/armored trained people be my guest.

Originally posted by Newjak
Please enlighten me,



How's this:


http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2014/11/21/amnesty-for-millions-tyranny-for-all/

Originally posted by Newjak
So even if that were true, there is more than one reason why that amendment was added, the other thing the Founding Fathers gave us was the ability to adapt and modify the constitution as we need for the changing times.

Like I said there is not viable reason to say every civilian needs the right to be armed. Prevent the government from taking us over? That's worked well in countries that still allow guns but still have dictatorships. I mean if you want to think having an assault rifle somehow means you can stand up to a force of tanks, planes, drones and heavily armed/armored men be my guest.

Even if that was true? Fact is that it is true.

Hahaha I guess you have not been to the middle east or know that you can fight a war against people with tanks, planes and ships, and not have any of that. Hence the entire Afghan and Iraq wars.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Even if that was true? Fact is that it is true.

Hahaha I guess you have not been to the middle east or know that you can fight a war against people with tanks, planes and ships, and not have any of that. Hence the entire Afghan and Iraq wars. No they also had it put in because well people needed firearms to survive back in those days. They also needed able bodies people that could easily armed should they need to fight a war. Those are all true things. Yours a bit a propaganda that really hasn't been grounded in any facts or statements of the founding fathers

Except Saddam did have those things we just had much better versions of them.

Also look how successful he was fending us off. Also look how successful his own people were fending Saddam off when he took power.


It's like you're trying to quote history without looking at the context of the history you are quoting.

Originally posted by Star428
How's this:


http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2014/11/21/amnesty-for-millions-tyranny-for-all/

Mostly everyone here has been drinking to much fluoride, they love anything handed down by there elected officials..

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Hahaha I guess you have not been to the middle east or know that you can fight a war against people with tanks, planes and ships, and not have any of that. Hence the entire Afghan and Iraq wars.

So you're saying you're the American ISIS in this hypothetical scenario where you take on the US government after Obama declares himself forever-king

Yeah bro, you see Red Dawn? Wolverines mother****er

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
As a person from Germany I know you know next to nothing about America or its constitution or politics. But hey you guys are real good at getting the world involved in 2 world wars.







I agree.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Mostly everyone here has been drinking to much fluoride, they love anything handed down by there elected officials.. What he quoted wasn't even related to the topic at hand. It states nothing saying the founding fathers added the second amendment to keep governments in check.

Originally posted by Newjak
No they also had it put in because well people needed firearms to survive back in those days. They also needed able bodies people that could easily armed should they need to fight a war. Those are all true things. Yours a bit a propaganda that really hasn't been grounded in any facts or statements of the founding fathers

Except Saddam did have those things we just had much better versions of them.

Also look how successful he was fending us off. Also look how successful his own people were fending Saddam off when he took power.


It's like you're trying to quote history without looking at the context of the history you are quoting.

Your talking about a country vastly smaller with much less population that SH had been killing off any opposition for 30 years. The US is much different, and so are the people.

Originally posted by Star428



I agree.

"But wait! Hitler was the polish fault! Even though, Germany invavded Poland! Its their fault not ours!" what he really meant.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're saying you're the American ISIS in this hypothetical scenario where you take on the US government after Obama declares himself forever-king

Are you putting words in my mouth for the fun of it, or you just like making me laugh. I said the reason why we were given the right to bear arms. But I know you are really against this so you will do or say whatever to make your side look good.

What interests me more is why you don't care about the constitution or its laws in any situation in which the liberals want to ignore, step on and throw it out. But love to hang on it when it suits your liberal beliefs.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Your talking about a country vastly smaller with much less population that SH had been killing off any opposition for 30 years. The US is much different, and so are the people.






I also guess he ignored the link I gave that details of what has happened repeatedly throughout history to the citizens of countries who have been disarmed by their government. He and others like him are too stubborn to admit that the importance of the second amendment is just as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago. I wouldn't bother trying to reason with any of them if I were you, TI. A waste of time.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Are you putting words in my mouth for the fun of it, or you just like making me laugh. I said the reason why we were given the right to bear arms. But I know you are really against this so you will do or say whatever to make your side look good.

What interests me more is why you don't care about the constitution or its laws in any situation in which the liberals want to ignore, step on and throw it out. But love to hang on it when it suits your liberal beliefs.

My error, that should have had a question mark after it, thereby asking you if this was your belief/stance.

Such as? If you recall, I am pro-gun ownership, as I noted I "would own a handgun or possibly a shotgun for home-defense if I felt insecure".

Originally posted by Star428



I also guess he ignored the link I gave that details of what has happened repeatedly throughout history to the citizens of countries who have been disarmed by their government. He and others like him are too stubborn to admit that the importance of the second amendment is just as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago. I wouldn't bother trying to reason with any of them if I were you, TI. A waste of time.

Yup, but they dont care, they just love government oversight on every facet of their life.

Its the reason America is in the situation we are because of stupid ideology and forgetting our roots. You could take 10 people that post of them on the forum, both of us included and it would be, 2 out of 10 actually believe in the roots we were founded in, the rest just give up their rights because someone tells them too.

Originally posted by Quincy
Yeah bro, you see Red Dawn? Wolverines mother****er


Awesome movie that is.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yup, but they dont care, they just love government oversight on every facet of their life.

Its the reason America is in the situation we are because of stupid ideology and forgetting our roots. You could take 10 people that post of them on the forum, both of us included and it would be, 2 out of 10 actually believe in the roots we were founded in, the rest just give up their rights because someone tells them too. This just pure stupidity. I'm sorry I'm not calling you stupid but this extreme if you don't agree with us you're a mindless idiot stance annoys me to no end. I know it isn't just a one sided thing but I'm addressing you now since you've said.

This kind of close minded talk is why there can not be any real discussion. This mentality of if you aren't with us you hate freedom and are puppets.

That is not the case nor will it ever be. You are not some rational know it all. I can look at your side and see some merit. I just think overall the picture isn't as one sided as you think. I don't think we are going to fall apart if we do not all have guns. There are plenty of freedom enjoying countries around the world that can attest to this side of things.

I can at least understand the fear of feeling defenseless though, even though you practically already are, and that desire to clutch to something that makes you feel safe.

Still I will not sit here and allow brow beating tactics like that to not go called out. You sir have stated something ignorant and lacking intellectual thought.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry I'm not calling you stupid....

Why not?

Originally posted by Newjak
This just pure stupidity. I'm sorry I'm not calling you stupid but this extreme if you don't agree with us you're a mindless idiot stance annoys me to no end. I know it isn't just a one sided thing but I'm addressing you now since you've said.

This kind of close minded talk is why there can not be any real discussion. This mentality of if you aren't with us you hate freedom and are puppets.

That is not the case nor will it ever be. You are not some rational know it all. I can look at your side and see some merit. I just think overall the picture isn't as one sided as you think. I don't think we are going to fall apart if we do not all have guns. There are plenty of freedom enjoying countries around the world that can attest to this side of things.

I can at least understand the fear of feeling defenseless though, even though you practically already are, and that desire to clutch to something that makes you feel safe.

Still I will not sit here and allow brow beating tactics like that to not go called out. You sir have stated something ignorant and lacking intellectual thought.

Allow? Who made you king, I am entitled to my opinion. And you can have yours, Nuff said.

Allow

Originally posted by BackFire
Why not?

Here I thought we were friends.

No cali love?

Not "allowed to have an opinion", just that he wouldn't allow your opinion to go unchallenged

"Still I will not sit here and allow brow beating tactics like that to not go called out. You sir have stated something ignorant and lacking intellectual thought." -NJ

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Here I thought we were friends.

No cali love?

No. I think you're the worst thing to happen to this forum in years.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not "allowed to have an opinion", just that he wouldn't allow your opinion to go unchallenged

"Still I will not sit here and allow brow beating tactics like that to not go called out. You sir have stated something ignorant and lacking intellectual thought." -NJ

Rob go do some yard work and stop swinging from peoples nutsacks.

Originally posted by BackFire
No. I think you're the worst thing to happen to this forum in years.

Yes the demise of the forum is my fault.

Having no discussion is better than the type of discussion that you have.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Rob go do some yard work and stop swinging from peoples nutsacks.

No, I have people to do my yard work and a "thank you" would have been the proper response for me explaining to you what NJ actually said and not what you imagined

Originally posted by BackFire
Having no discussion is better than the type of discussion that you have.

Actually if you read OP, I was trying to have a discussion until everyone here decides to jump on board and disrupt it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Actually if you read OP, I was trying to have a discussion until everyone here decides to jump on board and disrupt it.

You mean disagree with you?