# our new



## beercandan (Nov 3, 2004)

just browsing snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp (obamas' 50 lies)

http://i166.photobucket.com/flash/player.swf?file=http://vid166.photobucket.com/albums/u90/snopesbinary/Politics/abc_obama_anthem_071022a.flv


----------



## ...Jay... (Nov 2, 2006)

ant that messed up though? They made a big stink about that on the news a while back.

How hard is it to lift your f*cking hand. show some respect!


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

Wow, really? Why would he not do this?

Honestly, how did he get elected?


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

i'm confused... is this a pro-obama or anti-obama topic? the snopes article in the link you provided is debunking the 50 lies email that was circulating a while back


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

forget him not raising his arm...who was singing..i mean,slaughter the banner..


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Jayson745 said:


> ant that messed up though? They made a big stink about that on the news a while back.
> 
> How hard is it to lift your f*cking hand. show some respect!


beating a dead horse much?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

joedizzlempls said:


> i'm confused... is this a pro-obama or anti-obama topic? the snopes article in the link you provided is debunking the 50 lies email that was circulating a while back


Exactly, that snopes list proves most of those claims are false


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

hahahaha








maybe its just something bresidents do

maybe obama is a terr'ist


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

thePACK said:


> forget him not raising his arm...who was singing..i mean,slaughter the banner..












True dat--simply awfully sung lol


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

94NDTA said:


> Wow, really? Why would he not do this?
> 
> Honestly, how did he get elected?


because the majority of people did the right thing , VOTE woooooooooooooooooo


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

the right thing would be to pay attention other than one day in november. voting is meaningless without the will to watch your government, and the wisdom to know what it's constitutionally obligated to do.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

i agree but either way im hapy obama is in there lets see if he can make it better which will be hard being the economy sucks


----------



## JAC (Jan 19, 2004)

joedizzlempls said:


> i'm confused... is this a pro-obama or anti-obama topic? the snopes article in the link you provided is debunking the 50 lies email that was circulating a while back


 x2

I think Obama will be a positive change for the US (he can't possibly do a shittier job than Bush did), I just hope that he helps us out down here in S. America to get rid of the bunch of fascist bastards that are running many of the governments down here, Chavez, Correa, Morales...they are all the same and they are hurting our countries more than you can imagine, I just hope it's not too late.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

JAC said:


> i'm confused... is this a pro-obama or anti-obama topic? the snopes article in the link you provided is debunking the 50 lies email that was circulating a while back


 x2

I think Obama will be a positive change for the US (he can't possibly do a shittier job than Bush did), I just hope that he helps us out down here in S. America to get rid of the bunch of fascist bastards that are running many of the governments down here, Chavez, Correa, *Morales*...they are all the same and they are hurting our countries more than you can imagine, I just hope it's not too late.
[/quote]

Ya, not many people know about Evo Morales because our media only talks about Chavez; I got friends in Bolivia - everyone over there hates that commie f*ck. They're both insane and dangerous.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

Nick G said:


> hahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol, really, at least he isnt as stupid as bush


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

JAC said:


> i'm confused... is this a pro-obama or anti-obama topic? the snopes article in the link you provided is debunking the 50 lies email that was circulating a while back


 x2

I think Obama will be a positive change for the US *](he can't possibly do a shittier job than Bush did),* I just hope that he helps us out down here in S. America to get rid of the bunch of fascist bastards that are running many of the governments down here, Chavez, Correa, Morales...they are all the same and they are hurting our countries more than you can imagine, I just hope it's not too late.
[/quote]

Sure can, he can turn out like someone such as Chavez









BTW, you can openly slam Chavez and not worry about being drug in the street and shot? Or is it not that bad there yet?


----------



## JAC (Jan 19, 2004)

Not that bad yet, but many people have been murdered during protests and there are hundreds of political prisioners "awaiting trial", of course, most of these trials never seem to begin







.

Believe me, Chavez is the most dangerous one, the others are just suck ups, but this bastard has a lot of money (oil money, OUR money







) and he has an amazing ability to lie with a straight face and move people, poor people, he has no morals or values, he preaches against the rich and yet, anyone who afiliates with the government becomes rich overnight, half of Chavez's direct family occupy improtant positions in the government and they all went from being poor 10 years ago (when Chavez took office) to owning thousands of acres of land and being incredibly rich, but somehow, a lot of poor people still believe in him, sadly.

His has been the most corrupt administration in our modern history, the economy is shot, crime is higher than ever, he defends and finances criminals and terrorists (he calls members of the FARC brothers)...any possible thing that a president/government shouldn't do, you name it, he has done it.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> i'm confused... is this a pro-obama or anti-obama topic? the snopes article in the link you provided is debunking the 50 lies email that was circulating a while back


 x2

I think Obama will be a positive change for the US *](he can't possibly do a shittier job than Bush did),* I just hope that he helps us out down here in S. America to get rid of the bunch of fascist bastards that are running many of the governments down here, Chavez, Correa, Morales...they are all the same and they are hurting our countries more than you can imagine, I just hope it's not too late.
[/quote]

Sure can, he can turn out like someone such as Chavez









BTW, you can openly slam Chavez and not worry about being drug in the street and shot? Or is it not that bad there yet?








[/quote]

Your new name is Joe Fudgepack, Change it now... Go!


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.

Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?

Answer: Only if he had remembered to not salute due to his fabulous service in the US military.

Can you envision _Obama_ in the military?
(No, I mean US military, not the Iraqi military...)

We turned down a war hero for a muslim.
Yeah... the US is full of hippie retards IMO.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

^"War hero for a muslim" blah u sound very prickly there p-man


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

speakyourmind said:


> ^"War hero for a muslim" blah u sound very prickly there p-man


"Prickly?"

Oh my god... that's insane!
_That's just the look I was going for!_


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.
> 
> Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?
> 
> ...


 Where was your vote when it was between the draft dodging retard and the guy who actually served in vietnam. Or when Wesley Clark was running.. Now all of a sudden your all hoorah over p*ssy boy Mccain :laugh: .. I'll agree with one thing tho, this country is full of gay ass tree hugging hippies and goat f*cking absolute no nothing sheep. And its about time we let the gay ass hippies run things because you no nothing cow fuckers completely lost your minds and fucked everything up for the last 8 years







. how about a happy medium any way, you take a step back, take a breath and realize your party isn't run by no nothing baby Jesus loving cow fuckers anymore, but by corporate greedy neo-naz cough I mean neo-cons if you want something to be pissed off about..


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

Liquid said:


> IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.
> 
> Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?
> 
> ...


 Where was your vote when it was between the draft dodging retard and the guy who actually served in vietnam. Or when Wesley Clark was running.. Now all of a sudden your all hoorah over p*ssy boy Mccain :laugh: .. I'll agree with one thing tho, this country is full of gay ass tree hugging hippies and goat f*cking absolute no nothing sheep. *And its about time we let the gay ass hippies run things because you no nothing cow fuckers completely lost your minds and fucked everything up for the last 8 years* That was about hilarious!







. how about a happy medium any way, you take a step back, take a breath and realize your party isn't run by no nothing baby Jesus loving cow fuckers anymore, but by corporate greedy neo-naz cough I mean neo-cons if you want something to be pissed off about..
[/quote]

Anyway...To Piranha_man, i hope your lips aren't permanently puckered from all those sour grapes. If the man's Muslim he has a funny way of showing it. I don't think most Muslims could get away with attending a christian church. Especially not the radical kind you think he is.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

sheesh man hasnt even taken office yet and weve been through 8 ys of bullshit and a bullshit war that never found any WMD 's but people still bitchin let obama do what he does he cant do worse than either bush hell


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

thoroughbred said:


> sheesh man hasnt even taken office yet and weve been through 8 ys of bullshit and a bullshit war that never found any WMD 's but people still bitchin let obama do what he does he cant do worse than either bush hell


No way!

That would be the intelligent, mature way to look at it.

I simply can't do it!


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

mdrs said:


> the right thing would be to pay attention other than one day in november. voting is meaningless without the will to watch your government, and the wisdom to know what it's constitutionally obligated to do.


X 1,000,000

also,mccain is pretty much liberal with a rebub nametag.we wouldve been fucked with him but were damn sure fucked with this guy.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

thoroughbred said:


> sheesh man hasnt even taken office yet and weve been through 8 ys of bullshit and a bullshit war that never found any WMD 's but people still bitchin let obama do what he does he cant do worse than either bush hell


you're a moron...


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

mdrs said:


> the right thing would be to pay attention other than one day in november. voting is meaningless without the will to watch your government, and the wisdom to know what it's constitutionally obligated to do.


amen


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Graffight said:


> IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.
> 
> Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?
> 
> ...


 Where was your vote when it was between the draft dodging retard and the guy who actually served in vietnam. Or when Wesley Clark was running.. Now all of a sudden your all hoorah over p*ssy boy Mccain :laugh: .. I'll agree with one thing tho, this country is full of gay ass tree hugging hippies and goat f*cking absolute no nothing sheep. *And its about time we let the gay ass hippies run things because you no nothing cow fuckers completely lost your minds and fucked everything up for the last 8 years* That was about hilarious!







. how about a happy medium any way, you take a step back, take a breath and realize your party isn't run by no nothing baby Jesus loving cow fuckers anymore, but by corporate greedy neo-naz cough I mean neo-cons if you want something to be pissed off about..
[/quote]

Anyway...To Piranha_man, i hope your lips aren't permanently puckered from all those sour grapes. If the man's Muslim he has a funny way of showing it. I don't think most Muslims could get away with attending a christian church. Especially not the radical kind you think he is.
[/quote]

My lips are not puckered, but my eyes are squinted from reading your post.

The yellow font is hard to read, annoying and gay.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> sheesh man hasnt even taken office yet and weve been through 8 ys of bullshit and a bullshit war that never found any WMD 's but people still bitchin let obama do what he does he cant do worse than either bush hell


you're a moron...
[/quote]

Actually, I think he's right about on the mark. Of course, McCain would be an improvement over Bush as well, but why settle for merely a base hit when you can hit it out of the park ? Gobama !


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> sheesh man hasnt even taken office yet and weve been through 8 ys of bullshit and a bullshit war that never found any WMD 's but people still bitchin let obama do what he does he cant do worse than either bush hell


you're a moron...
[/quote]

great way to explain yourself, wow got to love the E-THUG in you


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

beercandan said:


> IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.
> 
> Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?
> 
> ...


 Where was your vote when it was between the draft dodging retard and the guy who actually served in vietnam. Or when Wesley Clark was running.. Now all of a sudden your all hoorah over p*ssy boy Mccain :laugh: .. I'll agree with one thing tho, this country is full of gay ass tree hugging hippies and goat f*cking absolute no nothing sheep. And its about time we let the gay ass hippies run things because you no nothing cow fuckers completely lost your minds and fucked everything up for the last 8 years







. how about a happy medium any way, you take a step back, take a breath and realize your party isn't run by no nothing baby Jesus loving cow fuckers anymore, but by corporate greedy neo-naz cough I mean neo-cons if you want something to be pissed off about..
[/quote]

Now you're talking!!!


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Liquid said:


> IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.
> 
> Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?
> 
> ...


 Where was your vote when it was between the draft-dodging retard and the guy who actually served in vietnam (Vietnam).(?) Or when Wesley Clark was running..(too many periods) Now all of a sudden your(you're) all hoorah over p*ssy boy Mccain :laugh: ..(again, too many periods) I'll agree with one thing tho, this country is full of gay-ass tree hugging hippies and goat f*cking absolute no(know) nothing sheep. And its about time we let the gay ass hippies run things because you no(know) nothing cow fuckers completely lost your minds and fucked everything up for the last 8 years







. how(How) about a happy medium any way(anyway),( you take a step back, take a breath and realize your party isn't run by no(know) nothing baby Jesus loving cow fuckers anymore, but by corporate greedy neo-naz (cough) I mean neo-cons if you want something to be pissed off about..(what's up with the double periods?)
[/quote]

If you're gonna call people "Know-nothings," take a look at yourself first.


----------



## philbert (Mar 8, 2007)

thank you to who ever posted the pics of both bush's not putting their hand on their heart. its hilarious that this thread was started to bash obama for something that had been done by previous republicans. and why are ppl calling obama a muslim? sounds like a mccain ad. lol. i remember learning about something like that in history class, called the red scare. better dead than red? and so what if he was a muslim. maybe that would stop the muslims from attacking us again like 9/11. ppl are so sour over losing this election to a bright articulate canidate. at least they didn't lose to a president who they made a dvd of called bushisms that showed him fumbling with the english language and putting his foot in his mouth. so call obama a muslim if you want to sound like an idiot. keep thying to push him down. just remember the ppl putting him down are probably ppl that voted for bush that once said: "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - [pauses] - shame on you. Fool me - I can't get fooled again." Nashville, Tenn., (September 17, 2002) i think it goes...correct me if im wrong, but "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

thoroughbred said:


> IMO there hasn't been a decent president since Reagan.
> 
> Ya think McCain would have put his hand over his heart?
> 
> ...


 Where was your vote when it was between the draft-dodging retard and the guy who actually served in vietnam (Vietnam).(?) Or when Wesley Clark was running..(too many periods) Now all of a sudden your(you're) all hoorah over p*ssy boy Mccain :laugh: ..(again, too many periods) I'll agree with one thing tho, this country is full of gay-ass tree hugging hippies and goat f*cking absolute no(know) nothing sheep. And its about time we let the gay ass hippies run things because you no(know) nothing cow fuckers completely lost your minds and fucked everything up for the last 8 years







. how(How) about a happy medium any way(anyway),( you take a step back, take a breath and realize your party isn't run by no(know) nothing baby Jesus loving cow fuckers anymore, but by corporate greedy neo-naz (cough) I mean neo-cons if you want something to be pissed off about..(what's up with the double periods?)
[/quote]

If you're gonna call people "Know-nothings," take a look at yourself first.








[/quote]

Go dryhump a dictionary, the f*ck do I care thats what my secretaries for..


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ Then perhaps you could dictate your ridiculous, childish comments to your secretary who could in turn post them for you.

Just a thought...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> ^^ Then perhaps you could dictate your ridiculous, childish comments to your secretary who could in turn post them for you.
> 
> Just a thought...


Hullo, this is likuids secretary, go fuk urself he dosnt pey ovur time.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> ^^ Then perhaps you could dictate your ridiculous, childish comments to your secretary who could in turn post them for you.
> 
> Just a thought...


Hullo, this is likuids secretary, go fuk urself he dosnt pey ovur time.
[/quote]

while his secretary seems to be on a similar educational plane, i didn't hear a reference to bestiality so the secretary seems a lot more charming.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Not that bad yet, but many people have been murdered during protests and there are hundreds of political prisioners "awaiting trial", of course, most of these trials never seem to begin
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*
Dont kid yourself. Its just ass bad over here with this government.
*

[/quote]

No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> sheesh man hasnt even taken office yet and weve been through 8 ys of bullshit and a bullshit war that never found any WMD 's but people still bitchin let obama do what he does he cant do worse than either bush hell


you're a moron...
[/quote]

Actually, I think he's right about on the mark. Of course, McCain would be an improvement over Bush as well, but why settle for merely a base hit when you can hit it out of the park ? Gobama !
[/quote]

the wmd remark. I hope obama does great things for this country, i truly do. The reality sets in, and i fear the probable.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

ChilDawg said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

what gets me is you got all these retards yelling "they're gonna take my assault weapon" "2nd amendment 2nd amendment"







like you're dumb ass's are ever going to need or actually use them for something other then squirl.. The time for that has come and gone right under your retarded noses and all this brave free soul did was try to do her civic duty and arrest a criminal for high treason and she herself gets jailed.. Restraint my ass we haven't been free in a looong time.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Liquid said:


> what gets me is you got all these retards yelling "they're gonna take my assault weapon" "2nd amendment 2nd amendment"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So i'm assuming since you frequent this site you have or used to have some Piranhas. Let's say they ban Piranha's. You don't need Piranhas. You wouldnt be pissed then when they come take your fish because you dont need them. right?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Lowporkwa said:


> what gets me is you got all these retards yelling "they're gonna take my assault weapon" "2nd amendment 2nd amendment"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So i'm assuming since you frequent this site you have or used to have some Piranhas. Let's say they ban Piranha's. You don't need Piranhas. You wouldnt be pissed then when they come take your fish because you dont need them. right?
[/quote]

Lol they banned piranhas a long time ago in my state.. Try and stay within context and maybe read the second amendment a bit first.. You've got two types of gun owners, the ones that shoot for the love of the sport like me and then you have the on the edge retards who buy up every single piece of useless artillery because he walks around scared of his own shadow, these are the same types that accidently shoot somebody every year or fly off the handle and go on an all out rampage. The kind of retards that can't open their mouths with out getting smacked in the head so they they need the illusion of a weapon to help them sleep at night, make em feel like a man







these types usually hide behind and use the 2nd amendment as an excuse to own a semi automatic shot gun. All I'm saying is if the 2nd amendment is "really" whats on reserve, which I know its not (rather an excuse for closet **** to dress up and play cowboy), then the time for that reserve has already came and gone with the bush administration right under their ass because thats where their noses are, so stfu and be happy you can still hunt squirl with a .50 cal..


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Liquid said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. *tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..*
[/quote]

OH NOES! WATCH OUT WE GOTS AN ARMCHAIR COMMANDO ON THE LOOSE!!!!


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. *tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..*
[/quote]

OH NOES! WATCH OUT WE GOTS AN ARMCHAIR COMMANDO ON THE LOOSE!!!!








[/quote]

Defensive much? A little too close to home eh :laugh: 
A baseball bat is a little bit different then a large bore weapon, with only one you would need distance, temperament, and decent aim.. From the sounds of you, granted both and you'd still look mighty funny walking around with either, including your delusions all wrapped up nicely and stuck up your ass.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Liquid said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..
[/quote]

Ms. Bonaparth disrupted an event, tried to make a false arrest, was merely lightly tapped by Rove and removed from the event, was not charged with said false arrest or trespassing, et cetera, really, wasn't charged with anything, and this is a sign that the government does NOT show restraint? WTF?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

ChilDawg said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..
[/quote]

Ms. Bonaparth disrupted an event, tried to make a false arrest, was merely lightly tapped by Rove and removed from the event, was not charged with said false arrest or trespassing, et cetera, really, wasn't charged with anything, and this is a sign that the government does NOT show restraint? WTF?
[/quote]

Who says it was a false arrest..


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Liquid said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..
[/quote]

Ms. Bonaparth disrupted an event, tried to make a false arrest, was merely lightly tapped by Rove and removed from the event, was not charged with said false arrest or trespassing, et cetera, really, wasn't charged with anything, and this is a sign that the government does NOT show restraint? WTF?
[/quote]

Who says it was a false arrest..
[/quote]

San Francisco PD, for one. If they couldn't make the arrest, why could she?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Liquid said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. *tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..*
[/quote]

OH NOES! WATCH OUT WE GOTS AN ARMCHAIR COMMANDO ON THE LOOSE!!!!








[/quote]

Defensive much? A little too close to home eh :laugh: 
A baseball bat is a little bit different then a large bore weapon, with only one you would need distance, temperament, and decent aim.. From the sounds of you, granted both and you'd still look mighty funny walking around with either, including your delusions all wrapped up nicely and stuck up your ass.
[/quote]

How so? Neither are weapons till used to attack. I can kill you just as easy with a 32oz Louisville slugger than i can with a kahr pm9.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Really? Cool, so let go play a few innings with a barret or run a few holes on a golf course with a semi-auto shotgun..



ChilDawg said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..
[/quote]

Ms. Bonaparth disrupted an event, tried to make a false arrest, was merely lightly tapped by Rove and removed from the event, was not charged with said false arrest or trespassing, et cetera, really, wasn't charged with anything, and this is a sign that the government does NOT show restraint? WTF?
[/quote]

Who says it was a false arrest..
[/quote]

San Francisco PD, for one. If they couldn't make the arrest, why could she?
[/quote]

The real question is why couldn't either, especially with the amount of documented evidence against him.. Just because they wouldn't doesn't mean they can't.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Really? Cool, so let go play a few innings with a barret or run a few holes on a golf course with a semi-auto shotgun..


Oh, so guns are meant for one purpose? We shoudl get all the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. After the good people are disarmed, we will have nothing to worry about at all...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Really? Cool, so let go play a few innings with a barret or run a few holes on a golf course with a semi-auto shotgun..


Oh, so guns are meant for one purpose? We shoudl get all the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. After the good people are disarmed, we will have nothing to worry about at all...
[/quote]

Never said "all" guns, but theres a reason why sales on assault weapons, with no purpose other then to do mass amount of damage in a short period of time, sky rocketed with Obama's election. These weren't the sportsmen going out buying up all the tactical weaponry. They were the scared to death retards who can't get an erection without a pistol grip in his hand.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

ChilDawg said:


> what gets me is you got all these retards yelling "they're gonna take my assault weapon" "2nd amendment 2nd amendment"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sing it ma brutha...


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Not to derail, but when a moment this special arises, it just has to be noted.

It looks as though P-Fury has proven to be more than just a fish forum... but a matchmaking site as well!
Looks to me like Liquid and Baddfish have made a luuuuuv connection!


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> Not to derail, but when a moment this special arises, it just has to be noted.
> 
> It looks as though P-Fury has proven to be more than just a fish forum... but a matchmaking site as well!
> Looks to me like Liquid and Baddfish have made a luuuuuv connection!


 I like em loose baby







you're more my type..


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Really? Cool, so let go play a few innings with a barret or run a few holes on a golf course with a semi-auto shotgun..


Oh, so guns are meant for one purpose? We shoudl get all the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. After the good people are disarmed, we will have nothing to worry about at all...
[/quote]

Never said "all" guns, but theres a reason why sales on assault weapons, with no purpose other then to do mass amount of damage in a short period of time, sky rocketed with Obama's election. These weren't the sportsmen going out buying up all the tactical weaponry. They were the scared to death retards who can't get an erection without a pistol grip in his hand.
[/quote]

Or people who enjoy the sport of shooting are buying up GUNS (not weapons) they enjoy shooting. Are you familiar with the AWB? The 1st one was a total failure. It did nothing to clean up the streets...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Really? Cool, so let go play a few innings with a barret or run a few holes on a golf course with a semi-auto shotgun..


Oh, so guns are meant for one purpose? We shoudl get all the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. After the good people are disarmed, we will have nothing to worry about at all...
[/quote]

Never said "all" guns, but theres a reason why sales on assault weapons, with no purpose other then to do mass amount of damage in a short period of time, sky rocketed with Obama's election. These weren't the sportsmen going out buying up all the tactical weaponry. They were the scared to death retards who can't get an erection without a pistol grip in his hand.
[/quote]

Or people who enjoy the sport of shooting are buying up GUNS (not weapons) they enjoy shooting. Are you familiar with the AWB? The 1st one was a total failure. It did nothing to clean up the streets...
[/quote]

unwritten rule here at pfury, you ever hear of the PFUWR's? article 6 sect 7 "one day response limit".. If you respond to a debate 3 days later, you're a retard







either way the only "sport" of shooting to enjoy is range. The reality is there is no sport to enjoy in most "tactical assault weapons". Or any weapon thats primary purpose is concealment and mass damage done up close. I do not consider any AR to be an "assault weapon", because it is entirely too hard to convert to full auto. AK's, all versions, are a different story. Very easily converted to full automatic, any weapon that maintains an open bolt for that matter. Your Ak's,ab-10's, tec 9's ect ect only purpose are to be considered "bad intentions". Like I said, theirs a big difference between your average "sportsman" and your typical retarded fear monger that hypocritically uses the second amendment to shield their self righteous fear mongering. In this day and age no one should have to worry about the intentions or fear mongers or their retarded children.. You can still go "****" hunting and make your hats or whatever the f*ck it is you do with a racoon :laugh: , just not with an ak 47..


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. *tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..*
[/quote]

OH NOES! WATCH OUT WE GOTS AN ARMCHAIR COMMANDO ON THE LOOSE!!!!








[/quote]

Defensive much? A little too close to home eh :laugh: 
A baseball bat is a little bit different then a large bore weapon, with only one you would need distance, temperament, and decent aim.. From the sounds of you, granted both and you'd still look mighty funny walking around with either, including your delusions all wrapped up nicely and stuck up your ass.
[/quote]

How so? Neither are weapons till used to attack. I can kill you just as easy with a 32oz Louisville slugger than i can with a kahr pm9.
[/quote]

umm...im a gun supporter, but that was a stupid ass comment. if you run at me with a 32oz bat, and i unload an entire magazine into you, you're going to die before you ever get to swing. real life situation, i kick your car in the parking lot with you inside...you get out, open your back door, as i say you dont want to die...you grab the bat and start running around the car, i backpedal, retrieve my weapon from it's concealed pocket holster, and shoot you 3 times center mass, at the very least you're severely injured with internal bleeding. and for good measure i shoot you in the head when you go down...you're dead, gun=1 bat=0.

now, you're 1500 yards out, and you're instructed to kill me with a bat, you've got trees to hide behind, but regardless, you've got to get 1500 yards up field to me...im looking at you down a scope mounted to a remington 700...rest assured, i will get you...even if im a terrible shot, i will get you eventually. and even if i dont hit you with a bullet, my gun weighs more than your bat, and is longer...so when you come up on me, i can still beat you to death more effectively than you can beat me to death.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> No, if that were the case, you would be in jail by now (or dead) for your constant rants against the government and those in control. The fact that you're not (and I'm glad that you're not) signals that our country has a greater restraint when it comes to dissent.


Pfffff yeah right this is the interwebs, try to confront anyone in this administration in public like that wonderful woman did to karl rove charging him with treason and see where it gets you.. my hats off to her.. *tell you what, security is lucky I wasnt there that night I would have rushed the stage right after her and mr karl would have landed on his neck before they could tazor me..*
[/quote]

OH NOES! WATCH OUT WE GOTS AN ARMCHAIR COMMANDO ON THE LOOSE!!!!








[/quote]

Defensive much? A little too close to home eh :laugh: 
A baseball bat is a little bit different then a large bore weapon, with only one you would need distance, temperament, and decent aim.. From the sounds of you, granted both and you'd still look mighty funny walking around with either, including your delusions all wrapped up nicely and stuck up your ass.
[/quote]

How so? Neither are weapons till used to attack. I can kill you just as easy with a 32oz Louisville slugger than i can with a kahr pm9.
[/quote]

umm...im a gun supporter, but that was a stupid ass comment. if you run at me with a 32oz bat, and i unload an entire magazine into you, you're going to die before you ever get to swing. real life situation, i kick your car in the parking lot with you inside...you get out, open your back door, as i say you dont want to die...you grab the bat and start running around the car, i backpedal, retrieve my weapon from it's concealed pocket holster, and shoot you 3 times center mass, at the very least you're severely injured with internal bleeding. and for good measure i shoot you in the head when you go down...you're dead, gun=1 bat=0.

now, you're 1500 yards out, and you're instructed to kill me with a bat, you've got trees to hide behind, but regardless, you've got to get 1500 yards up field to me...im looking at you down a scope mounted to a remington 700...rest assured, i will get you...even if im a terrible shot, i will get you eventually. and even if i dont hit you with a bullet, my gun weighs more than your bat, and is longer...so when you come up on me, i can still beat you to death more effectively than you can beat me to death.

[/quote]

i don't think it was a tactical situation he meant. my guess is, he's saying you can kill someone with a bat just like a gun. both can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't mean that they are both a weapon by nature.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

well, guns were created to be anti-person. it was their purpose. there's a reason why the army uses guns instead of bats. the undeniable fact is that everything has a purpose, and the purpose of a gun is to kill, injure, indimidate, or stop a living threat. sure, they can be used to kill, injure, intimidate (deter) and charging bear, or other wildlife, and they can be used to hunt, but their major purpose is to kill, injure, intimidate or stop a living threat. where a bat's major purpose is to hit a baseball, a golf clubs purpose is to hit a tiny golf ball, a wrench's purpose is to break nuts loose or tighten bolts, a hammers purpose is to drive a nail, a toasters purpose is to cook bread, or pop tarts, a pencils purpose is to write on a piece of paper, all of these objects CAN be used to kill somebody...but only ONE was meant to be used that way...a gun.

can it be used for target practice? absolutely, (and i enjoy it very much). can it be used to scare off pests in the garden? absolutely...can it be used for general recreation? absolutely...can they be used as collectors items? absolutely...what is it's most oft used application however? self defense, or military offense. unfortunately, guns are so easily abused, when compared with a baseball bat, or a pencil.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

the one thing i don't understand is why we have to explain why we "need" a certain type of gun. it's our right to keep and bear arms. it shall not be infringed. it's very clear. i can say whatever i want, i don't have to explain my need to say it to validate my right. if anything, my government should "need" to explain why it finds it necessary to violate my constitution and infringe my rights. i don't need to explain why i do or do not choose to practice a certain religion. if i want to go through the legal process to buy and keep a gun, why should i have to show "need" to exercise my rights?

rights are not the product of need. they are God given rights that are required to live in a free society.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

well, one thing i will say is that i can't imagine thomas jefferson ever imagined the existance of fighter jets, laser guided bombs, shoulder fired missiles, atomic bombs, chemical ordinance, or even automatic weapons. weapons that are pinpoint accurate over miles and miles, unmanned aircraft, or aircraft in general, satellite missile guidance systems, nuclear submarines, armored tanks, 150mm cannons, C4 plastic explosives...i mean, should i have access to such destructive things? me personally? i know that i would never abuse anything like that, but some jackass who gets laid off from his jobs jumps into his M1 abrams tank and blows up the entire town, including where he used to work...that's 1 man that does REAL damage out of countless thousands who possibly have weapons of that caliber...my point is, where does the limit come into effect? should we be able to have semi-automatic weapons? i think we should...but if we can have semi-auto weapons, why can't we have automatic weapons? and if we can have automatic weapons, why can't we have RPG's? or javlin missiles? why can't i have a fully functional tank? 150mm cannon and .50 cal turret equipped?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> well, one thing i will say is that i can't imagine thomas jefferson ever imagined the existance of fighter jets, laser guided bombs, shoulder fired missiles, atomic bombs, chemical ordinance, or even automatic weapons. weapons that are pinpoint accurate over miles and miles, unmanned aircraft, or aircraft in general, satellite missile guidance systems, nuclear submarines, armored tanks, 150mm cannons, C4 plastic explosives...i mean, should i have access to such destructive things? me personally? i know that i would never abuse anything like that, but some jackass who gets laid off from his jobs jumps into his M1 abrams tank and blows up the entire town, including where he used to work...that's 1 man that does REAL damage out of countless thousands who possibly have weapons of that caliber...my point is, where does the limit come into effect? should we be able to have semi-automatic weapons? i think we should...but if we can have semi-auto weapons, why can't we have automatic weapons? and if we can have automatic weapons, why can't we have RPG's? or javlin missiles? why can't i have a fully functional tank? 150mm cannon and .50 cal turret equipped?


the easiest answer is that you will never come close to affording the price tag. and if you could, you couldn't afford to fuel them. and if you could, you couldn't maintain them. but logically, you still don't explain why rights need to be explained. why should i be put on the spot and be forced to explain why i need something that is already observed in my constitution?

Jefferson may or may not have thought of these things. there is no way to know that. what he could conceive of is a government looking to limit the right of its citizens to increase its own power. that's what's happening now. the scary part of freedom is the responsibility of it. the trust required of your fellow man. you have to trust in your neighbors to truly live in a free society.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.

as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


if people don't know how to utilize them, they should learn how to do so. but they are owed no explanation. if someone is too lazy or stupid to research their own rights, they do so at their own peril.

as to the trust point, not where i was going but you did come up with a good counter-point. i don't believe man is fundamentally good. i think that man is fundamentally selfish. that man will do whatever necessary (some more than others) to survive or excel. i think that given the nature of man, it is unwise to put yourself in a situation that makes it impossible to protect yourself. i'll carry a gun, if i feel i need to. and as far as i'm concerned, i do consider people hostile until proven otherwise. does this mean i go for my gun when someone puts a hand in their pocket? no. i won't take the responsibility of ending someone's life unless there is no other option. so, prudently i think, i keep my guard up. does that make me an accident waiting to happen? i doubt it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

well, that's another fundamental difference between me and you. i believe people are good. and there is some type of disconnect in their upbringing that makes them bad. that's just the way i am. if somebody is in trouble, my natural instinct is to help them. even if it puts me in a precarious situation.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> well, that's another fundamental difference between me and you. i believe people are good. and there is some type of disconnect in their upbringing that makes them bad. that's just the way i am. if somebody is in trouble, my natural instinct is to help them. even if it puts me in a precarious situation.


for one who believes so much in evolution you should be aware that your outlook is unnatural. good or bad means nothing in nature. all life is, at its core, self serving. if we came from nature the good ole' darwinist way, we still are animals. as such, we're taught what good and bad are. to say otherwise is to imply something in man that knows the difference between good and evil, which is what some christians say is the soul. you cannot say that people are fundamentally "good" but dismiss the obvious connection to the divine, and still be logical.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

people are naturally affectionate. want a good example? cinema, theater, etc...entertainment in general. everything is derived from emotion. we are programmed to work together and to help each other, because there are strength in numbers, and we understand that. vigilante's somehow have a disconnect.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> people are naturally affectionate. want a good example? cinema, theater, etc...entertainment in general. everything is derived from emotion. we are programmed to work together and to help each other, because there are strength in numbers, and we understand that. vigilante's somehow have a disconnect.


because everything is derived from emotion, people are naturally affectionate and helpful? i'm not seeing your leap here. how is it that vigilantes have a "disconnect"? i fail to see how actors show us people are naturally affectionate.

are people fundamentally good or are they helpful and affectionate? i guess you could say both but still, you didn't explain very well.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

it's part of being fundamentally good. the fact that army soldiers have to be drilled for months on killing people, and then when it comes time to blow someone's head off, a lot of them have apprehensions. a lot of people can't stand to think about killing someone, people who do kill people commit attrocities, these are all examples of how society is programmed with good people. people who would rather help, than harm. if somebody falls on an escalator in the mall, everybody will run to help them...and if 1 person doesn't, they'll be labeled as such by most bystanders.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> it's part of being fundamentally good. the fact that army soldiers have to be drilled for months on killing people, and then when it comes time to blow someone's head off, a lot of them have apprehensions. a lot of people can't stand to think about killing someone, people who do kill people commit attrocities, these are all examples of how society is programmed with good people. people who would rather help, than harm. if somebody falls on an escalator in the mall, everybody will run to help them...and if 1 person doesn't, they'll be labeled as such by most bystanders.


nevermind that people live in neighborhoods that mean they watch their families and neighbors gunned down, raped, and descend into a pit of blackness, and do nothing. that people have a cultural commitment to victimization and sit around on the government dollar while the productive support them. ignore children executing people in other countries. and don't pay attention to the numerous other examples that prove that man is motivated by his own best interest. be careful using statements like "a lot of people" when making a statement about how all people are something. it's vague, and unprovable and sounds like a half thought.

if someone falls on an escalator, the good samaritan sacrifices nothing by helping. it's not as if that person is in danger. that person, if anything, will feel better about themself for helping out. hardly altruism. name one act that isn't a trade of value. one's act of sacrifice, if done so willingly, is simply that a trade. that doens't make man fundamentally good.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


 I couldn't agree more..


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

I think you have to be able to define "assault weapon" before you can ban it. lolz


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> I think you have to be able to define "assault weapon" before you can ban it. lolz


baseball bat
pipe wrench
#2 pencil
empty beer bottle.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


How many CCW can you really know? Arnt you in Mass.. which happens to be a "may issue" state.

Hobbes was a smart guy. 
"The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature."

So if people exercise their 2a right, we are bad people? If you wont protect yourself, then who will?

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you have some really fucked up views on the issue...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


How many CCW can you really know? Arnt you in Mass.. which happens to be a "may issue" state.

Hobbes was a smart guy. 
"The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature."

So if people exercise their 2a right, we are bad people? If you wont protect yourself, then who will?

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you have some really fucked up views on the issue...
[/quote]

Well that depends what your talking about. If your talking about the love for hunting or long range sport, then a few less worthless tactical weapons won't hurt you one bit. If your talking about ccw and pistols, I have a ccw and don't like to carry other then on my way to my range. And I'm gonna take a wild guess that thats the healthy attitude to maintain while exercising that right, not walking around with a pussified "well if I get into a dispute today I'm going to shoot someone in the face"







.. If your talking about needing an arsenal of a tactical magnitude to protect yourself from other citizens then your views on life need therapy and you need to slow down take a breather and grow some balls ffs. If your talking about protecting your constitutional rights against your government from infringing on, then your a bit late on that one. So what do you need protection from, that you need the right to own weapons that are meant for nothing other then killing a whole lot of people in as short of time possible? Is there a new breed of pack rabid racoons that I don't know about running around taking us out while we sleep? Or are the outdated delusions of fear mongering individuals more important then the safety and moral (for that matter) of a civilized nation as a whole.

..Entirely too many retards walking around with their second amendment right and I've known quite a few of them...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

again, i don't need to justify my rights. i don't need to explain why i "need" to be allowed to have freedom of religion or speech. why should i have to do the same to own a firearm?

if i have to do that, i'm then asking for privileges, not demanding rights. it is not my government's responsibility to only give rights to people who "need" them. it is against my government's mandate to erode my God given rights. it is the job of my government to assure my rights are protected. ARs are arms, and i have a right to keep and bear them. i do not have a right to use them to commit crimes, as that violates the right of others. come after me if i violate the law, do not make it legally impossible for me to exercise my rights.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


How many CCW can you really know? Arnt you in Mass.. which happens to be a "may issue" state.

Hobbes was a smart guy. 
"The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature."

So if people exercise their 2a right, we are bad people? If you wont protect yourself, then who will?

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you have some really fucked up views on the issue...
[/quote]

i am pro-gun, like it or leave it. i like guns, i like having access to guns, gun bans dont work, restrictive measures CAN, but i wouldn't expect you to understand anything other than "from my cold dead hands".

and i know more CCW than you think, i also live 800 feet from NH, and my family consists of cops, and sportsmen. all of whom i can agree with on the subject, so maybe it's just a midwest thing...who knows.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> again, i don't need to justify my rights. i don't need to explain why i "need" to be allowed to have freedom of religion or speech. why should i have to do the same to own a firearm?
> 
> if i have to do that, i'm then asking for my rights, not demanding them. it is not my government's responsibility to only give rights to people who "need" them. it is the job of my government to assure my rights are protected. ARs are arms. i have a right to keep and bear them. i do not have a right to use them to commit crimes, as that violates the right of others. come after *me* if i violate the law, do not make it legally impossible for *me* to exercise my rights.


Nobodies questioning your right to own a fire arm. I'm questioning your right to own fire arms with only one purpose, tactical. I highlighted two of your very important "ideals" above. *Me*. An age old question, and we're not talking freedom of speech or religion. Are the civil rights of an individual more important then the safety and and rights of the majority? I'm glad you can speak for yourself behind your desk in humble surroundings, but the reality is most with this same self righteous view wouldn't think twice about abusing this right or leaving themselves with little other options in a situation where things don't or aren't going their way. And having access to any weapon thats sole purpose is to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time is unacceptable, especially in this contagious age of f*cking retardation. When I was younger I thought like you, as an adult witnessing the complete devolution of an entire generation I feel differently is all I'm saying








.. Guess I'm trying to spark up a "logical" and responsible thought process here, especially when the issue will be on the table soon..


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> Nobodies questioning your right to own a fire arm. I'm questioning your right to own fire arms with only one purpose, tactical. I highlighted two of your very important "ideals" above. *Me*. An age old question, and we're not talking freedom of speech or religion. Are the civil rights of an individual more important then the safety and and rights of the majority? I'm glad you can speak for yourself behind your desk in humble surroundings, but the reality is most with this same self righteous view wouldn't think twice about abusing this right or leaving themselves with little other options in a situation where things don't or aren't going their way. And having access to any weapon thats sole purpose is to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time is unacceptable, especially in this contagious age of f*cking retardation. When I was younger I thought like you, as an adult witnessing the complete devolution of an entire generation I feel differently is all I'm saying :laugh: .. Guess I'm trying to spark up a "logical" and responsible thought process here, especially when the issue will be on the table soon..


what's wrong with me looking out for me? are my arguments less true for someone else? does someone else have different rights? how are ARs a threat to the majority? the majority of gun crimes don't even involve them. pistols are the weapon of choice. and gang members won't stop using them just because they're illegal, you know that.

and you are questioning my right to own a firearm. you said yourself "I'm questioning your right to own fire arms with only one purpose, tactical." the purpose of the weapon is whatever i use it for. claiming that it only has one purpose because you see it that way is not a logical argument. i could just want one to shoot target. well within my rights. i could want one to shoot all the rounds into the ground outside my house. i could want to turn it into a coat rack. it's NONE of the government's business, if i'm not breaking the law. punish those who break the law, not those who abide by it.

and if an entire generation is "devolving" like you say, a weapon is even more important. personally, i don't think it's as dire as you put it.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> Nobodies questioning your right to own a fire arm. I'm questioning your right to own fire arms with only one purpose, tactical. I highlighted two of your very important "ideals" above. *Me*. An age old question, and we're not talking freedom of speech or religion. Are the civil rights of an individual more important then the safety and and rights of the majority? I'm glad you can speak for yourself behind your desk in humble surroundings, but the reality is most with this same self righteous view wouldn't think twice about abusing this right or leaving themselves with little other options in a situation where things don't or aren't going their way. And having access to any weapon thats sole purpose is to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time is unacceptable, especially in this contagious age of f*cking retardation. When I was younger I thought like you, as an adult witnessing the complete devolution of an entire generation I feel differently is all I'm saying :laugh: .. Guess I'm trying to spark up a "logical" and responsible thought process here, especially when the issue will be on the table soon..


what's wrong with me looking out for me? are my arguments less true for someone else? does someone else have different rights? how are ARs a threat to the majority? the majority of gun crimes don't even involve them. pistols are the weapon of choice. and gang members won't stop using them just because they're illegal, you know that.

and you are questioning my right to own a firearm. you said yourself "I'm questioning your right to own fire arms with only one purpose, tactical." the purpose of the weapon is whatever i use it for. claiming that it only has one purpose because you see it that way is not a logical argument. i could just want one to shoot target. well within my rights. i could want one to shoot all the rounds into the ground outside my house. i could want to turn it into a coat rack. it's NONE of the government's business, if i'm not breaking the law. punish those who break the law, not those who abide by it.

and if an entire generation is "devolving" like you say, a weapon is even more important. personally, i don't think it's as dire as you put it.
[/quote]

While I agree AR's aren't the problem and shouldn't be including as an "assault weapon".. Personally, I've got to consider the greater cause. AK 47's on the other hand are the weapon of choice, by most Americans, and are a lot cheaper and easier to modify. The NRA is so busy trying to convince everyone that "all firearms" are acceptable in a "sportmans" nature because of the 2nd amendment. Where the NRA themselves should be taking the forefront and the responsibility on educating the reality of the differences in weapons and help usher in a logical "2nd amendment" fitted for a 21st century society, god knows they've lobbied our government enough, why not actually get involved.. Instead of just ploping their fat asses down on the right and rallying every time someone gets shot.
They should put their feet on the ground and accept the reality on societies terms.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> While I agree AR's aren't the problem and shouldn't be including as an "assault weapon".. Personally, I've got to consider the greater cause. AK 47's on the other hand are the weapon of choice, by most Americans, and are a lot cheaper and easier to modify. The NRA is so busy trying to convince everyone that "all firearms" are acceptable in a "sportmans" nature because of the 2nd amendment. Where the NRA themselves should be taking the forefront and the responsibility on educating the reality of the differences in weapons and help usher in a logical "2nd amendment" fitted for a 21st century society, god knows they've lobbied our government enough, why not actually get involved.. Instead of just ploping their fat asses down on the right and rallying every time someone gets shot.
> They should put their feet on the ground and accept the reality on societies terms.


reality doesn't have terms. reality is reality and anyone who discusses terms is attempting to skew reality to their perspective. hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment. it is not conditional. we are not given a right to hunt. we are not given a right to be "sportsmen". we are endowed with the right to keep and bear arms for ANY REASON that isn't illegal or immoral. i don't have to "need" a gun to have the right to buy it. i have to be able to buy the gun from a vendor, and that's it. as long as i'm not breaking the law, it's none of the government's (or anyone else's) business what i do with my property.

this isn't something that needs a fresh "21st century" update. this is a fundamental right. please show me the facts you quote when you state that "AK 47's on the other hand are the weapon of choice, by most Americans". please show me how many ARs are responsible for gun crimes. as i said, it's HANDGUNS that are used in most street crimes. if you're in favor of harsher punishments for CRIMINALS that break the law, fine. if you're in favor of reform of the judicial system so it's not as easy to get around a gun charge, fine. but don't think for a second that "the greater cause" requires me to surrender my freedom because you don't think i "needed" it freedom. there is no concept of "free enough".


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> While I agree AR's aren't the problem and shouldn't be including as an "assault weapon".. Personally, I've got to consider the greater cause. AK 47's on the other hand are the weapon of choice, by most Americans, and are a lot cheaper and easier to modify. The NRA is so busy trying to convince everyone that "all firearms" are acceptable in a "sportmans" nature because of the 2nd amendment. Where the NRA themselves should be taking the forefront and the responsibility on educating the reality of the differences in weapons and help usher in a logical "2nd amendment" fitted for a 21st century society, god knows they've lobbied our government enough, why not actually get involved.. Instead of just ploping their fat asses down on the right and rallying every time someone gets shot.
> They should put their feet on the ground and accept the reality on societies terms.


reality doesn't have terms. reality is reality and anyone who discusses terms is attempting to skew reality to their perspective. hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment. it is not conditional. we are not given a right to hunt. we are not given a right to be "sportsmen". we are endowed with the right to keep and bear arms for ANY REASON that isn't illegal or immoral. i don't have to "need" a gun to have the right to buy it. i have to be able to buy the gun from a vendor, and that's it. as long as i'm not breaking the law, it's none of the government's (or anyone else's) business what i do with my property.

this isn't something that needs a fresh "21st century" update. this is a fundamental right. please show me the facts you quote when you state that "AK 47's on the other hand are the weapon of choice, by most Americans". please show me how many ARs are responsible for gun crimes. as i said, it's HANDGUNS that are used in most street crimes. if you're in favor of harsher punishments for CRIMINALS that break the law, fine. if you're in favor of reform of the judicial system so it's not as easy to get around a gun charge, fine. but don't think for a second that "the greater cause" requires me to surrender my freedom because you don't think i "needed" it freedom. there is no concept of "free enough".
[/quote]

You're not listening to a word I'm saying, your just sitting there repeating the 2nd amendment over and over again like your the f*cking rain man and wapners about to come on. So excuse my frustration with your self righteous rhetoric while you continue to generalize my point of view and place it on all guns period while I've tried to explain very slowly that its not. I already agreed with you on AR's and pistols. If you have any doubts about ak 47s or tec 9's look no further then every school yard/work/ place rampage. Your average c*ck sucker that can't handle himself or doesn't know what to do with himself when he gets his feelings hurt. The f*cking right wing evangelist cult compounds that are set up all through out the midwest with armed to the T retards walking around preaching "Gods" word. You can look every where from your podunk towns where cousin junior just got done shooting cousin fucko and half a dozen of his uncle/cousins over a tree stand or because they looked like racoons, to your inner city's where tyrone just shot tito for standing next to his stop sign wearing neon pink shoelaces in a maroon shoelace zone. Your the type of person that only cares about whats going on in your back yard and you probably have the nerve to have a flag hanging on your front porch. The hypocrisy in that alone and your refusal to think outside the box makes you part of the problem with this country..


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> So excuse my frustration with your self righteous rhetoric while you continue to generalize my point of view and place it on all guns period while I've tried to explain very slowly that its not. I already agreed with you on AR's and pistols.


to make it clear, i was wondering earlier how you managed to make one single post without being profane or insulting. i took the liberty of removing all of the insulting or profane material from your last post. as i'm not going to reply to "podunk towns, right wing evangelists, cousin junior, or tyrone". you can make all of the stereotypical, unfounded, and offensive statements you want. i'll continue to ignore them, as i said before. now, so you understand, if you can't make a point without being profane or insulting, then you can't make a point.

show me where in my constitution (not your opinion) where i'm told what kind of weapons i'm allowed to have. show me where it addreses what is and what is not an AR. as a hint, if you think that the AK isn't you don't know what an AR is.

as i said, a gun, ANY gun is simply that. a gun. it has no purpose other than that i give it. you simply think that making guns illegal will stop "tito" will stop him from shooting his cousin. it won't. it doesn't. if the death penalty (a fact your party loves to throw into arguments) isn't a deterrant, how is a simple gun law?

is that clear enough or do you even bother listening to what people you don't agree with say? you see, i take the trouble to at least respond to what you say. i might be able to pick apart the logical holes in your arguments but i at least take the time to respond to them. you only mock me and make cheap personal attacks that you should be banned for (but my only theory is that the mods are amused by you) but, for some reason, you're allowed to continue spewing bile at people that simply want to have mature discourse.

one last time, if you continue to make nonsensical and offensive comments, i'll simply ignore you like most other people here do.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> So excuse my frustration with your self righteous rhetoric while you continue to generalize my point of view and place it on all guns period while I've tried to explain very slowly that its not. I already agreed with you on AR's and pistols.


to make it clear, i was wondering earlier how you managed to make one single post without being profane or insulting. i took the liberty of removing all of the insulting or profane material from your last post. as i'm not going to reply to "podunk towns, right wing evangelists, cousin junior, or tyrone". you can make all of the stereotypical, unfounded, and offensive statements you want. i'll continue to ignore them, as i said before. now, so you understand, if you can't make a point without being profane or insulting, then you can't make a point.

show me where in my constitution (not your opinion) where i'm told what kind of weapons i'm allowed to have. show me where it addreses what is and what is not an AR. as a hint, if you think that the AK isn't you don't know what an AR is.

as i said, a gun, ANY gun is simply that. a gun. it has no purpose other than that i give it. you simply think that making guns illegal will stop "tito" will stop him from shooting his cousin. it won't. it doesn't. if the death penalty (a fact your party loves to throw into arguments) isn't a deterrant, how is a simple gun law?

is that clear enough or do you even bother listening to what people you don't agree with say? you see, i take the trouble to at least respond to what you say. i might be able to pick apart the logical holes in your arguments but i at least take the time to respond to them. you only mock me and make cheap personal attacks that you should be banned for (but my only theory is that the mods are amused by you) but, for some reason, you're allowed to continue spewing bile at people that simply want to have mature discourse.

one last time, if you continue to make nonsensical and offensive comments, i'll simply ignore you like most other people here do.
[/quote]

I'm talking AR15s-AR10s.. Quite easy to modify an ak into a full automatic where its very hard to do the same to an AR15, you can purchase an ak or an ak rip off and convert it to a fully automatic weapon for next to nothing, where as ARs are a lot more expensive and harder to modify.. Not talking about armpit hair removal here.. Dust off your soap box while your up there because if your going to respond to the tito shooting your gonna have to respond to cousin junior as well.. You don't like my insults and I don't like retards so we're even..

..Btw, scroll up for the answer to the rest of your bullshit you're starting to bore me..

P.S actually the death penalty is a deterrent the same way as a full board outlaw on tacticle weaponry would be as well..


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> I'm talking AR15s-AR10s.. Quite easy to modify an ak into a full automatic where its very hard to do the same to an AR15, you can purchase an ak or an ak rip off and convert it to a fully automatic weapon for next to nothing, where as ARs are a lot more expensive and harder to modify.. Not talking about armpit hair removal here..
> 
> P.S actually the death penalty is a deterrent the same way as a full board outlaw on tacticle weaponry would be as well..


i have to congratulate you, after i edited your post for you, you manged a whole 4 whole sentences without attempting to be profane or insulting. that's pretty good for you. if you get bored without being able to use those four letter words, i suggest you go back to arguing with grade schoolers who are also just learning to use "adult words". but you are showing improvement, so i'll just lay off and give you a gold star.

well if i'm not mistaken, the first sentence (or two or three since you need to use punctuation) you used was about illegal modification of a firearm. which has NOTHING to do with the actual firearm at the time of sale. which only goes to my point of giving purpose to something after you buy it and when you break a law you are then AND ONLY THEN guilty of a crime. of course, many people buy AKs and DON'T modify them, which is perfectly legal. thank you for helping me to make my point, there.

and just so you know, AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.

did you have anything else to say or were you too bored to read my entire post. i tried to "explain it slowly" (as you say) for you.

EDIT: i just read the last line on your post. what is "tactile" weaponry? would i be killing my opponent with my sense of touch?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.










you can't be serious







and I actually gave you the benefit of doubt.. figures.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.










you can't be serious :laugh: and I actually gave you the benefit of doubt.. figures.
[/quote]

out of all i wrote and you chose to address that? wow. at least i didn't have to read through and delete your usual drivel about sheep and ricky bobbies. you are getting better.

tell me, though. what is the logical fallacy i've fallen into here? show me where i'm wrong rather than dismissing my statements (which you usually do) which explains the reason hardly anyone on this site takes your arguments seriously (including your fellow democrats).


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Liquid said:


> AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.










you can't be serious :laugh: and I actually gave you the benefit of doubt.. figures.
[/quote]
So, if you're all for banning "Assault Weapons" or "Tactical Weapons" could you please define exactly what they are? If your criteria is anything that can be easily converted to fire as an automatic then that rules out a vast majority of semi-auto rifles and pistols. This also includes the AR variants that can be converted to fully automatic by modifying the sear.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Scrappy said:


> AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.










you can't be serious :laugh: and I actually gave you the benefit of doubt.. figures.
[/quote]
So, if you're all for banning "Assault Weapons" or "Tactical Weapons" could you please define exactly what they are? If your criteria is anything that can be easily converted to fire as an automatic then that rules out a vast majority of semi-auto rifles and pistols. This also includes the AR variants that can be converted to fully automatic by modifying the sear.
[/quote]

Definition of an Assault Rifle- A Rifle with the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes.

The newer AR's are designed to prevent the use of a DIAS or drilling. Granted older versions are virtually identical
to military issued. But most newer American made Assault rifles are being built with trigger-activated transfer bar safety mechanisms, ect to prevent and make it extremely hard to convert to a full automatic weapon. Which btw you will not find these measures being taken in any version of your AK's. Their are other factors to consider when defining an assault rifle, concealment for one.. You can't label an AR15 in the same category with calico 900's. So when I talk about an all out ban I'm not talking about a ban on AR's (armalite) that would meet regulations that are set in place, including any so called "legal" modifications to reduce the weapon in size. I'm also not talking about your walther p99's when I talk about concealment. I'm talking about your tec-9 your mac 10s your calico 960's ect..

Either way these are all issues the NRA should be working with legislate on to find a happy medium, instead of just taking a hard nose on the right not even willing to consider the reality of the amount of retards that make this country into our current society... Mdrs your not a retard because I said you are, your a retard because you're too stupid to take any consideration, you just draw a line hop on one side and spew worthless rhetoric. Obviously wet behind the ears and with an ignorant attitudes like yours, instead of rational thought just hard nose self righteous bullshit, we're bound to all suffer an all out complete ban on assault rifles. Personally a smaller sacrifice for a greater cause so while I'm against it, I can understand


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.










you can't be serious :laugh: and I actually gave you the benefit of doubt.. figures.
[/quote]
So, if you're all for banning "Assault Weapons" or "Tactical Weapons" could you please define exactly what they are? If your criteria is anything that can be easily converted to fire as an automatic then that rules out a vast majority of semi-auto rifles and pistols. This also includes the AR variants that can be converted to fully automatic by modifying the sear.
[/quote]

Definition of an Assault Rifle- A Rifle with the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes.

The newer AR's are designed to prevent the use of a DIAS or drilling. Granted older versions are virtually identical
to military issued. But most newer American made Assault rifles are being built with trigger-activated transfer bar safety mechanisms, ect to prevent and make it extremely hard to convert to a full automatic weapon. Which btw you will not find these measures being taken in any version of your AK's. Their are other factors to consider when defining an assault rifle, concealment for one.. You can't label an AR15 in the same category with calico 900's. So when I talk about an all out ban I'm not talking about a ban on AR's (armalite) that would meet regulations that are set in place, including any so called "legal" modifications to reduce the weapon in size. I'm also not talking about your walther p99's when I talk about concealment. I'm talking about your tec-9 your mac 10s your calico 960's ect..

Either way these are all issues the NRA should be working with legislate on to find a happy medium, instead of just taking a hard nose on the right not even willing to consider the reality of the amount of retards that make this country into our current society... Mdrs your not a retard because I said you are, your a retard because you're too stupid to take any consideration, you just draw a line hop on one side and spew worthless rhetoric. Obviously wet behind the ears and with an ignorant attitudes like yours, instead of rational thought just hard nose self righteous bullshit, we're bound to all suffer an all out complete ban on assault rifles. Personally a smaller sacrifice for a greater cause so while I'm against it, I can understand :laugh: 
[/quote]

you can call me what you want. you're not a joke because i say you are, you're a joke because you can't come up with logical reasons as to why the person is wrong, you just call names like a child. you're a joke because you've said elsewhere, (need i provide you a link) that you don't want to have a civilized conversation, you'd rather call names. so as i said then, let me know when you do want to have a civilized conversation without name calling and your cute little remarks. i'll talk to anyone who can act like an adult.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.










you can't be serious :laugh: and I actually gave you the benefit of doubt.. figures.
[/quote]
So, if you're all for banning "Assault Weapons" or "Tactical Weapons" could you please define exactly what they are? If your criteria is anything that can be easily converted to fire as an automatic then that rules out a vast majority of semi-auto rifles and pistols. This also includes the AR variants that can be converted to fully automatic by modifying the sear.
[/quote]

Definition of an Assault Rifle- A Rifle with the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes.

The newer AR's are designed to prevent the use of a DIAS or drilling. Granted older versions are virtually identical
to military issued. But most newer American made Assault rifles are being built with trigger-activated transfer bar safety mechanisms, ect to prevent and make it extremely hard to convert to a full automatic weapon. Which btw you will not find these measures being taken in any version of your AK's. Their are other factors to consider when defining an assault rifle, concealment for one.. You can't label an AR15 in the same category with calico 900's. So when I talk about an all out ban I'm not talking about a ban on AR's (armalite) that would meet regulations that are set in place, including any so called "legal" modifications to reduce the weapon in size. I'm also not talking about your walther p99's when I talk about concealment. I'm talking about your tec-9 your mac 10s your calico 960's ect..

Either way these are all issues the NRA should be working with legislate on to find a happy medium, instead of just taking a hard nose on the right not even willing to consider the reality of the amount of retards that make this country into our current society... Mdrs your not a retard because I said you are, your a retard because you're too stupid to take any consideration, you just draw a line hop on one side and spew worthless rhetoric. Obviously wet behind the ears and with an ignorant attitudes like yours, instead of rational thought just hard nose self righteous bullshit, we're bound to all suffer an all out complete ban on assault rifles. Personally a smaller sacrifice for a greater cause so while I'm against it, I can understand :laugh: 
[/quote]

you can call me what you want. you're not a joke because i say you are, you're a joke because you can't come up with logical reasons as to why the person is wrong, you just call names like a child. you're a joke because you've said elsewhere, (need i provide you a link) that you don't want to have a civilized conversation, you'd rather call names. so as i said then, let me know when you do want to have a civilized conversation without name calling and your cute little remarks. i'll talk to anyone who can act like an adult.
[/quote]

I'll take that as your finished drooling all over yourself?







good. Your lucky I don't drag your ass into court for having to put up with all your dribble. God help those who actually take you seriously..


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

mdrs said:


> I'm talking AR15s-AR10s.. Quite easy to modify an ak into a full automatic where its very hard to do the same to an AR15, you can purchase an ak or an ak rip off and convert it to a fully automatic weapon for next to nothing, where as ARs are a lot more expensive and harder to modify.. Not talking about armpit hair removal here..
> 
> P.S actually the death penalty is a deterrent the same way as a full board outlaw on tacticle weaponry would be as well..


i have to congratulate you, after i edited your post for you, you manged a whole 4 whole sentences without attempting to be profane or insulting. that's pretty good for you. if you get bored without being able to use those four letter words, i suggest you go back to arguing with grade schoolers who are also just learning to use "adult words". but you are showing improvement, so i'll just lay off and give you a gold star.

*well if i'm not mistaken, the first sentence (or two or three since you need to use punctuation) you used was about illegal modification of a firearm. which has NOTHING to do with the actual firearm at the time of sale. which only goes to my point of giving purpose to something after you buy it and when you break a law you are then AND ONLY THEN guilty of a crime. of course, many people buy AKs and DON'T modify them, which is perfectly legal. thank you for helping me to make my point, there.*

and just so you know, AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.

did you have anything else to say or were you too bored to read my entire post. i tried to "explain it slowly" (as you say) for you.

EDIT: i just read the last line on your post. what is "tactile" weaponry? would i be killing my opponent with my sense of touch?
[/quote]

how many people drink too many beers, AFTER they buy them, and jump it a car, AFTER they've drank em, and kill somebody WHILE driving drunk? how many laws do we have to thwart this?

how many people abuse pills? do we require perscriptions?

how many people abuse sudafed, do you think people should be entitled to purchasing as much as they want at any given time? (see, methamphetamine, midwest)

case in point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

now dude, you are probably really responsible with an AK...you're probably really responsible with a 22mm automatic cannon, you're probably really responsible with hand grenades, bazookas, land mines, and claymores...but should you have them?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> I'm talking AR15s-AR10s.. Quite easy to modify an ak into a full automatic where its very hard to do the same to an AR15, you can purchase an ak or an ak rip off and convert it to a fully automatic weapon for next to nothing, where as ARs are a lot more expensive and harder to modify.. Not talking about armpit hair removal here..
> 
> P.S actually the death penalty is a deterrent the same way as a full board outlaw on tacticle weaponry would be as well..


i have to congratulate you, after i edited your post for you, you manged a whole 4 whole sentences without attempting to be profane or insulting. that's pretty good for you. if you get bored without being able to use those four letter words, i suggest you go back to arguing with grade schoolers who are also just learning to use "adult words". but you are showing improvement, so i'll just lay off and give you a gold star.

*well if i'm not mistaken, the first sentence (or two or three since you need to use punctuation) you used was about illegal modification of a firearm. which has NOTHING to do with the actual firearm at the time of sale. which only goes to my point of giving purpose to something after you buy it and when you break a law you are then AND ONLY THEN guilty of a crime. of course, many people buy AKs and DON'T modify them, which is perfectly legal. thank you for helping me to make my point, there.*

and just so you know, AR isn't just a model line. it's what other people (who read about gun laws and gun control) use as short hand (abbreviations, (oops my mistake, i'll use smaller words, writing something shorter than it is to save time)) to describe "assualt rifles" which not even our federal government can do effectively.

did you have anything else to say or were you too bored to read my entire post. i tried to "explain it slowly" (as you say) for you.

EDIT: i just read the last line on your post. what is "tactile" weaponry? would i be killing my opponent with my sense of touch?
[/quote]

how many people drink too many beers, AFTER they buy them, and jump it a car, AFTER they've drank em, and kill somebody WHILE driving drunk? how many laws do we have to thwart this?

how many people abuse pills? do we require perscriptions?

how many people abuse sudafed, do you think people should be entitled to purchasing as much as they want at any given time? (see, methamphetamine, midwest)

case in point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

now dude, you are probably really responsible with an AK...you're probably really responsible with a 22mm automatic cannon, you're probably really responsible with hand grenades, bazookas, land mines, and claymores...but should you have them?
[/quote]

the north hollywood shootout would have been much shorter if the men didn't have body armor. should we ban that? you still can't seem to answer the simple question, would those guys have not committed that crime if the weapons they were using were illegal? would that have deterred them, despite the people they were willing to kill and the fact that neither were taken alive? are these the people your laws will stop?

in the end, you're still advocating a law that won't stop crazy people from getting guns and doing crazy things. as if the guns are responsible. after ARs, it's handguns. what point to they have? why do we need them? where does it end?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


How many CCW can you really know? Arnt you in Mass.. which happens to be a "may issue" state.

Hobbes was a smart guy. 
"The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature."

So if people exercise their 2a right, we are bad people? If you wont protect yourself, then who will?

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you have some really fucked up views on the issue...
[/quote]

i am pro-gun, like it or leave it. i like guns, i like having access to guns, gun bans dont work, restrictive measures CAN, but i wouldn't expect you to understand anything other than "from my cold dead hands".

and i know more CCW than you think, i also live 800 feet from NH, and my family consists of cops, and sportsmen. all of whom i can agree with on the subject, so maybe it's just a midwest thing...who knows.
[/quote]

Ive NEVER muttered the line, "from my cold dead hands". Your anti-gun attitude is showing there. Gun bans dont work? What if they did? Would you support them? Restrictions? Like the restriction they want to place on your beloved 50bmg?? 
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, pull up articles i which people were mass murdered by assault rifles (no gang involvement or drugs). Hell, pull up articles where individuals were killed by these so called assault guns. For every one you would be able to find, i can pull up 100 articles where someone died of a heartattack who was fat. Shall we outlaw people from eating fast foods and sodas? You want to ban assault guns because they "look mean"? Talk about "pussification"...


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


How many CCW can you really know? Arnt y

ou in Mass.. which happens to be a "may issue" state.

Hobbes was a smart guy. 
"The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature."

So if people exercise their 2a right, we are bad people? If you wont protect yourself, then who will?

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you have some really fucked up views on the issue...
[/quote]

i am pro-gun, like it or leave it. i like guns, i like having access to guns, gun bans dont work, restrictive measures CAN, but i wouldn't expect you to understand anything other than "from my cold dead hands".

and i know more CCW than you think, i also live 800 feet from NH, and my family consists of cops, and sportsmen. all of whom i can agree with on the subject, so maybe it's just a midwest thing...who knows.
[/quote]

Ive NEVER muttered the line, "from my cold dead hands". Your anti-gun attitude is showing there. Gun bans dont work? What if they did? Would you support them? Restrictions? Like the restriction they want to place on your beloved 50bmg?? 
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, pull up articles i which people were mass murdered by assault rifles *(no gang involvement or drugs)*. Hell, pull up articles where individuals were killed by these so called assault guns. For every one you would be able to find, i can pull up 100 articles where someone died of a heartattack who was fat. Shall we outlaw people from eating fast foods and sodas? You want to ban assault guns because they "look mean"? Talk about "pussification"...
[/quote]

wow, that's convenient! hey, why dont you look up gun crime NOT tied to gangs or drugs...then once you come up with that stat, i'll field your question.

my anti-gun attitude? no, anti-asshole attitude is what i have.

what if they did? if gun bans worked, everybody would support them. only the extreme gun owners would not.

banning soda and fast food is not the same...last time i checked, fewer bank robberies, and drive by shootings were committed by big macs in 2007 than with FIREARMS. that's a really stupid argument.

mdrs, if they had been able to get pistols, the police officers body armor would've done a hell of a lot more than it did against FMJ .308 rounds being sprayed across the parking lot.

hey, if the guy across the street had a .50BMG in his apartment, he could've ended the whole thing without anybody innocent getting hurt...and if a bolt of lightning struck a tree just right, the tree would've fallen on the two assailants ending the spree...you can't take away body armor, there are too many ways to make it work good...but you can restrict weapons, especially weapons easily modified to be fully automatic and that can deal as much damage as the ones dealt. im sure you'd be outspoken if they had used bazookas...hey we should ban bazookas right? why bazookas but not AK's? please please please answer my question, you STILL havent.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

By your definition then liquid, you would want to ban a ruger 10/22??


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> i never disagreed with you. rights are rights, i agree. they should have to be explained, but only to people who dont know how to utilize them.
> 
> as far as trust of your fellow man goes...honestly, the most sketchy, untrusting people in the world (in my opinion) are people who hide behind their guns as their protectors. people who believe everybody is an enemy. those are the people who are the least trusting. that's not an insult to anybody on these boards, but a lot of people i've met who do carry concealed have absolutely no faith in the goodness of people. they believe that everybody is out to rob and kill them or their families. very scary people, especially equipped with a gun.


How many CCW can you really know? Arnt y

ou in Mass.. which happens to be a "may issue" state.

Hobbes was a smart guy. 
"The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature."

So if people exercise their 2a right, we are bad people? If you wont protect yourself, then who will?

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you have some really fucked up views on the issue...
[/quote]

i am pro-gun, like it or leave it. i like guns, i like having access to guns, gun bans dont work, restrictive measures CAN, but i wouldn't expect you to understand anything other than "from my cold dead hands".

and i know more CCW than you think, i also live 800 feet from NH, and my family consists of cops, and sportsmen. all of whom i can agree with on the subject, so maybe it's just a midwest thing...who knows.
[/quote]

Ive NEVER muttered the line, "from my cold dead hands". Your anti-gun attitude is showing there. Gun bans dont work? What if they did? Would you support them? Restrictions? Like the restriction they want to place on your beloved 50bmg?? 
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, pull up articles i which people were mass murdered by assault rifles *(no gang involvement or drugs)*. Hell, pull up articles where individuals were killed by these so called assault guns. For every one you would be able to find, i can pull up 100 articles where someone died of a heartattack who was fat. Shall we outlaw people from eating fast foods and sodas? You want to ban assault guns because they "look mean"? Talk about "pussification"...
[/quote]

wow, that's convenient! hey, why dont you look up gun crime NOT tied to gangs or drugs...then once you come up with that stat, i'll field your question.

my anti-gun attitude? no, anti-asshole attitude is what i have.

what if they did? if gun bans worked, everybody would support them. only the extreme gun owners would not.

banning soda and fast food is not the same...last time i checked, fewer bank robberies, and drive by shootings were committed by big macs in 2007 than with FIREARMS. that's a really stupid argument.

mdrs, if they had been able to get pistols, the police officers body armor would've done a hell of a lot more than it did against FMJ .308 rounds being sprayed across the parking lot.

hey, if the guy across the street had a .50BMG in his apartment, he could've ended the whole thing without anybody innocent getting hurt...and if a bolt of lightning struck a tree just right, the tree would've fallen on the two assailants ending the spree...you can't take away body armor, there are too many ways to make it work good...but you can restrict weapons, especially weapons easily modified to be fully automatic and that can deal as much damage as the ones dealt. im sure you'd be outspoken if they had used bazookas...hey we should ban bazookas right? why bazookas but not AK's? please please please answer my question, you STILL havent.
[/quote]

No, because it all boils down to personal responsibility.... Support a gun ban? Its your RIGHT, a freedom... Your damn right I wont support that.

So your saying that drugs and gangs then consist for much of our gun violence? Why not instead then focus your anti-gun self against the likes of the lawabiding citizen, why dont you take the attack dogs and focus on the issues at hand?

A bazooka is not a gun...

Answer me this r1. Chicago has a gun ban, as does/did DC. Why is it they are the 2 most violent cities to live in the US? By your logic, would it not be peaceful because there is a gun ban in effect. To bad for the law-abiding citizen who follows the rules... This is not a gun free zone... its a criminal heaven.

ps- you have still yet to comment on the "restrictions" they want to place on your beloved 50bmg... And several of the long guns that you claim to enjoy to shoot.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dude, im not in favor of a gun ban...do you understand that? i've said it a hundred times...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> dude, im not in favor of a gun ban...do you understand that? i've said it a hundred times...


Oh yeah... silly me... "restrictions"

Its to bad that your political party has a hard on for the "gun bans"...

Its my personal opinion that anyone who voted for obama shoudl not be allowed to own a gun, cap, water, ANY...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> mdrs, if they had been able to get pistols, the police officers body armor would've done a hell of a lot more than it did against FMJ .308 rounds being sprayed across the parking lot.
> 
> hey, if the guy across the street had a .50BMG in his apartment, he could've ended the whole thing without anybody innocent getting hurt...and if a bolt of lightning struck a tree just right, the tree would've fallen on the two assailants ending the spree...you can't take away body armor, there are too many ways to make it work good...but you can restrict weapons, especially weapons easily modified to be fully automatic and that can deal as much damage as the ones dealt. im sure you'd be outspoken if they had used bazookas...hey we should ban bazookas right? why bazookas but not AK's? please please please answer my question, you STILL havent.


i said if the perps didn't have body armor. i have no clue what you're talking about with .50 cals and bazookas. you are aware i'm not FOR a weapons ban, right? you admit that body armor can be used for good or ill but how is it ARs don't go by the same rule?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

are you ever going to answer my question mdrs? ever? a right is something fundamental, can't be given, can't be taken away, "shall not be infringed".

ok, we've established that. so, with that being said, do you think people should have unrestricted access to M60's, SAW's, mark 19's, big automatic destructive weapons? and, if not, then at what point does the restriction take effect? if you're either for it, or against it, then you either agree, people should be allowed to own a howitzer, or they shouldn't be able to own a BB gun. which side are you on?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> are you ever going to answer my question mdrs? ever? a right is something fundamental, can't be given, can't be taken away, "shall not be infringed".
> 
> ok, we've established that. so, with that being said, do you think people should have unrestricted access to M60's, SAW's, mark 19's, big automatic destructive weapons? and, if not, then at what point does the restriction take effect? if you're either for it, or against it, then you either agree, people should be allowed to own a howitzer, or they shouldn't be able to own a BB gun. which side are you on?


no i don't think that ordinary people should have heavy armor, mark 19s, or howitzers. would you like to know why? because after the government pays for the research and production of the technology, it would be against contractual obligations to sell the rights to said technology. it's theirs because the DoD footed the bill for every aspect of the development of said technology.

now, please don't puff up your little chest in righteous indignation about me not answering your questions when you ignore every one of mine you don't have an answer for. i invite you to go back to the piracy thread and answer my questions about "worthless" countries that you advocated carpet bombing. should i incessantly mock you and bump the thread demanding an answer? should i harp on the point over and over and over and over because i think i've "gotcha"?


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Liquid said:


> Definition of an Assault Rifle- A Rifle with the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes.
> 
> The newer AR's are designed to prevent the use of a DIAS or drilling. Granted older versions are virtually identical
> to military issued. But most newer American made Assault rifles are being built with trigger-activated transfer bar safety mechanisms, ect to prevent and make it extremely hard to convert to a full automatic weapon. Which btw you will not find these measures being taken in any version of your AK's. Their are other factors to consider when defining an assault rifle, concealment for one.. You can't label an AR15 in the same category with calico 900's. So when I talk about an all out ban I'm not talking about a ban on AR's (armalite) that would meet regulations that are set in place, including any so called "legal" modifications to reduce the weapon in size. I'm also not talking about your walther p99's when I talk about concealment. I'm talking about your tec-9 your mac 10s your calico 960's ect..
> ...


And that transfer bar can be easily removed. It's not much harder to make any of the AR variants fully auto than an AK. Btw, I don't understand what exactly you want to make illegal. First you said "Assault Weapons" but by your own definition of them they are already illegal. The you said "Tactical Weapons" but you can't define what that is. Then you say Tec-9's, Mac-10's and Calico 960's, but the automatic versions are already illegal and the semi-auto versions aren't any more "dangerous" than any other firearm.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

mdrs said:


> are you ever going to answer my question mdrs? ever? a right is something fundamental, can't be given, can't be taken away, "shall not be infringed".
> 
> ok, we've established that. so, with that being said, do you think people should have unrestricted access to M60's, SAW's, mark 19's, big automatic destructive weapons? and, if not, then at what point does the restriction take effect? if you're either for it, or against it, then you either agree, people should be allowed to own a howitzer, or they shouldn't be able to own a BB gun. which side are you on?


no i don't think that ordinary people should have heavy armor, mark 19s, or howitzers. would you like to know why? because after the government pays for the research and production of the technology, it would be against contractual obligations to sell the rights to said technology. it's theirs because the DoD footed the bill for every aspect of the development of said technology.

now, please don't puff up your little chest in righteous indignation about me not answering your questions when you ignore every one of mine you don't have an answer for. i invite you to go back to the piracy thread and answer my questions about "worthless" countries that you advocated carpet bombing. should i incessantly mock you and bump the thread demanding an answer? should i harp on the point over and over and over and over because i think i've "gotcha"?
[/quote]

puff off my little chest...right. ok, well, DoD spends the vast majority on ordinary firearms, in-fact, the vast majority of firearms have military roots. so...im not sure your reasoning makes any sense...the internet, the government footed the entire bill for that right? R&D and all that bs, so why should we have the right to use it? according to your own words...?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> are you ever going to answer my question mdrs? ever? a right is something fundamental, can't be given, can't be taken away, "shall not be infringed".
> 
> ok, we've established that. so, with that being said, do you think people should have unrestricted access to M60's, SAW's, mark 19's, big automatic destructive weapons? and, if not, then at what point does the restriction take effect? if you're either for it, or against it, then you either agree, people should be allowed to own a howitzer, or they shouldn't be able to own a BB gun. which side are you on?


no i don't think that ordinary people should have heavy armor, mark 19s, or howitzers. would you like to know why? because after the government pays for the research and production of the technology, it would be against contractual obligations to sell the rights to said technology. it's theirs because the DoD footed the bill for every aspect of the development of said technology.

now, please don't puff up your little chest in righteous indignation about me not answering your questions when you ignore every one of mine you don't have an answer for. i invite you to go back to the piracy thread and answer my questions about "worthless" countries that you advocated carpet bombing. should i incessantly mock you and bump the thread demanding an answer? should i harp on the point over and over and over and over because i think i've "gotcha"?
[/quote]

puff off my little chest...right. ok, well, DoD spends the vast majority on ordinary firearms, in-fact, the vast majority of firearms have military roots. so...im not sure your reasoning makes any sense...the internet, the government footed the entire bill for that right? R&D and all that bs, so why should we have the right to use it? according to your own words...?








[/quote]

part of the contract when a company develops technology is that the company cannot sell the details of the technology or any completed weapons. so no i don't think that people should be able to have technology that is licensed to only one end user, the DoD. does that make more sense?

as for the internet, the government developed the technology and then released it to the private market for further development. at that point, yes it was the right of anyone who wanted to develop it as the license no longer existed.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

so what about WW2 era light machine guns, or foreign weapons not funded by the DoD, MG42s? STEN guns? things like that? what about mortars or RPG's made in russia? why shouldn't we be able to buy plastic explosives? even though the composition of most are well known and available for free over the internets...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

yes those weapons should be legal. i don't have a problem with extremely stiff penalties for crimes committed with said weapons, but it should not be a crime to simply posses them.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

unfortunately for you and everyone all hoopla over the 2nd amendment, i can't agree...see, what's a stiff penalty for someone who kills 100 people with an MG42? what are you gonna do...kill him? wooow, 1 guy, responsible for 100 deaths, and arguably his own...why risk it? what possible good can come from letting automatic weapons become easily available?

here's my argument, hear me out before you respond to my first paragraph...

for a long time, i've been into guns, shooting is a great sport/hobby, and it's something that can be enjoyed safely by everybody with common sense. people have the right to protect themselves by any means possible, a pistol is an amazing deterrant, a great tool for stopping an asailant, and probably the best insurance policy that 1000 dollars can buy. (if you like fancy new ones). here's my point, pistols can be relatively cheap...a hundred, maybe 200 dollars for a cheap .38 s&w, same goes for a 12 gauge. of the top 10 guns used in crime, 9 were pistols, and 1 was a shotgun (http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm). all of these weapons were "cheap" meaning, inexpensive. so then you might ask me, criminals would never buy a 5,000 dollar automatic weapon to smoke some guy and pitch it in a dumpster after....well, here's the problem...like the bank robbery, with that kind of firepower, (MG42 or any other rapid fire automatic heavy caliber weapon) nobody is going to get into range to touch you...especially in a cluttered inner city. cops will back off and you will get away. or, you'll end up killing 500 people with automatic fire.

if they're legalized, automatic weapons will become less expensive, just because they'd be readily available, produced a lot more, and more inexpensive versions would be produced. things like the glock18C would hit the market at bottom prices, fall out of someones van, and end up committing countless driveby's. maybe for every driveby there are 1000 happy, law abiding, stand up citizens who own one of those guns and enjoy the hell out of it and will never ever have an incident with it...but when it comes to the people getting peppered with bullets...who is going to give a sh*t about them? having the ability to shoot 30 rounds in the time it would normally take you to shoot one through a bolt action rifle is quite an advantaged situation...


----------



## spartacus101 (Oct 28, 2008)

94NDTA said:


> Wow, really? Why would he not do this?
> 
> Honestly, how did he get elected?


 Thats what I'm saying...now we are stuck with a Habibu as our leader. How the hell did that happen????


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> unfortunately for you and everyone all hoopla over the 2nd amendment, i can't agree...see, what's a stiff penalty for someone who kills 100 people with an MG42? *what i've pointed out numerous times that keeps getting ignored is that someone who kills 100 people won't give a sh*t about a law that says he's murdering 100 people with an illegal weapon. and the fact that the majority of gun crimes are not done with ARs.*what are you gonna do...kill him? wooow, 1 guy, responsible for 100 deaths, and arguably his own...why risk it? what possible good can come from letting automatic weapons become easily available? *the observation of my basic rights. what good can come of making these guns illegal? someone with no respect for the lives of their fellow citizens will choose a different gun to break the law with because they don't want to violate a weapons ban? making these guns illegal will raise prices which guarantees people will sell them illegally at a huge profit. just like drugs, or even alcahol during prohibition. it created the mob as we know it in this country because prices went so high. banning these weapons will not remove them from this country, and you know it.*
> 
> here's my argument, hear me out before you respond to my first paragraph...
> 
> ...


i did read your entire post, before replying. i read it three times, in fact to be sure of what you were saying. when it comes down to it, though you yourself said weapons bans don't work. all they do is serve criminals by making it profitable to sell banned goods and supplying people with a source of guns to use.

i'll say it again, gun laws do not deterr people intent on mass murder. why would they? it makes no sense.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> unfortunately for you and everyone all hoopla over the 2nd amendment, i can't agree...see, what's a stiff penalty for someone who kills 100 people with an MG42? what are you gonna do...kill him? wooow, 1 guy, responsible for 100 deaths, and arguably his own...why risk it? what possible good can come from letting automatic weapons become easily available?
> 
> here's my argument, hear me out before you respond to my first paragraph...
> 
> ...


NEWS FLASH>>>> Automatic guns are LEGAL!

PLEASE link me one article where a person who had a class III license, went on a murder rampage with their 15k+ automatic rifle. Hell, link me one article where a person was killed by an automatic gun, in which the shooter held a class III on the gun.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Scrappy said:


> Definition of an Assault Rifle- A Rifle with the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes.
> 
> The newer AR's are designed to prevent the use of a DIAS or drilling. Granted older versions are virtually identical
> to military issued. But most newer American made Assault rifles are being built with trigger-activated transfer bar safety mechanisms, ect to prevent and make it extremely hard to convert to a full automatic weapon. Which btw you will not find these measures being taken in any version of your AK's. Their are other factors to consider when defining an assault rifle, concealment for one.. You can't label an AR15 in the same category with calico 900's. So when I talk about an all out ban I'm not talking about a ban on AR's (armalite) that would meet regulations that are set in place, including any so called "legal" modifications to reduce the weapon in size. I'm also not talking about your walther p99's when I talk about concealment. I'm talking about your tec-9 your mac 10s your calico 960's ect..
> ...


And that transfer bar can be easily removed. It's not much harder to make any of the AR variants fully auto than an AK. Btw, I don't understand what exactly you want to make illegal. First you said "Assault Weapons" but by your own definition of them they are already illegal. The you said "Tactical Weapons" but you can't define what that is. Then you say Tec-9's, Mac-10's and Calico 960's, but the automatic versions are already illegal and the semi-auto versions aren't any more "dangerous" than any other firearm.
[/quote]

Yeah? You go ahead and remove the transfer bar on any "new" AR rifle and try firing at least one round off :laugh: 
Its a lot cheaper and easier to convert any ak then it is even the old A-1s, you can forget about the redesigned models..

I've already defined what a tactical/assault weapon is. And it isn't just "my" definition, it is the definition. And no they aren't illegal neither are the kits. I shouldn't have to break down that the availability and the possibilities sold as is on any rifle will continue to be the difference whether or not considered an assault rifle. Their are a variant of assault rifle regulations that need to be put in place. Along with an all out ban on weapons that do not meet those regulations. Semi auto versions of the tec 9, mac 10, calico's don't make these weapons any less dangerous especially when you consider how easy it is to conceal them. Bottom line, you can scrutinize regulations all you want, but in reality you should be pushing for them. Not only is it the responsible thing to do, but with out them, and your looking at a definite ban with in a year, like it or not. Luckily ububu there (Obama) or whatever you want to call him has an open mind and an open ear. But if the NRA and friends continue to take a hard nose on the right you can kiss your "legal" right to hunt racoons with an ak-47 good bye. Finally we will have people with common sense running things


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Gun Control --> Head shot on a deer at 150 yards.
I had venison stew last night. Mmmmmm


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Gun bans and police protection get you...

LINK


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

That's a sad situation right there, and the exact reason I keep my revolver loaded in a drawer beside my bed. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You cannot have any effect whatsoever on violent crime by banning the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens. The phrase "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is repeated often for a reason--it's true.
<edit>
You really want to have an effect on crime? Make it legal for everyone to open-carry everywhere. How many muggers and street scum would have the balls to try to rob somebody walking down the street if that sombody had a .45 auto on his/her hip in plain site? How many scumbags would be brave enough to walk into a bank, whip out a gun and say "Hands Up" if all 30 of the customers inside had pistols in shoulder/leg/ankle rigs?
Sounds crazy until you remember that M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) was what kept the two most powerful countries in the world from nuking each other during the Cold War.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

As a gun owner, I am certainly not for instituting a ban on sale of fire arms to law abiding citizen, but the theory that if you enforce stricter gun laws crime will skyrocket doesn't work. Countries with strict gun control usually have a much lower violent crime rate. But there are other factors to be considered - education, poverty, etc...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> As a gun owner, I am certainly not for instituting a ban on sale of fire arms to law abiding citizen, but the theory that if you enforce stricter gun laws crime will skyrocket doesn't work. Countries with strict gun control usually have a much lower violent crime rate. But there are other factors to be considered - education, poverty, etc...


What works then? Gun bans dont work, its just a criminal heaven. Gun control? I feel a move towards strict gun control would just be one step closer to a total gun ban. 
If we lived in some of these countries you speak of, we would have such a mess because the gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets as they do now. Modern gangs are the mobsters of the 20s.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> As a gun owner, I am certainly not for instituting a ban on sale of fire arms to law abiding citizen, but the theory that if you enforce stricter gun laws crime will skyrocket doesn't work. Countries with strict gun control usually have a much lower violent crime rate. But there are other factors to be considered - education, poverty, etc...


What works then? Gun bans dont work, its just a criminal heaven. Gun control? I feel a move towards strict gun control would just be one step closer to a total gun ban. 
If we lived in some of these countries you speak of, we would have such a mess because the gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets as they do now. Modern gangs are the mobsters of the 20s.
[/quote]

We have to institute smart gun control to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have them. Mental health testing would be one and closing any loopholes that enable people to obtain them without a proper background checks.

Have you no idea where you're going with the " gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets", lost me completely


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> As a gun owner, I am certainly not for instituting a ban on sale of fire arms to law abiding citizen, but the theory that if you enforce stricter gun laws crime will skyrocket doesn't work. Countries with strict gun control usually have a much lower violent crime rate. But there are other factors to be considered - education, poverty, etc...


What works then? Gun bans dont work, its just a criminal heaven. Gun control? I feel a move towards strict gun control would just be one step closer to a total gun ban. 
If we lived in some of these countries you speak of, we would have such a mess because the gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets as they do now. Modern gangs are the mobsters of the 20s.
[/quote]

We have to institute smart gun control to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have them. Mental health testing would be one and closing any loopholes that enable people to obtain them without a proper background checks.

Have you no idea where you're going with the " gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets", lost me completely
[/quote]

A lot of our gun violence is because of gang or drug activity. Why not focus more on gangs and drugs than guns.

So a private sale would have to go through a FFL? I can agree with that somewhat if some of the greedy bastards lowered their outrageous transfer fees.

Gang and drug violence is a HUGE part of Americans gun violence problem. For some reason we allow this behavior to continue. Why not attack the root issues? Issue stricter drug/gang crimes?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> As a gun owner, I am certainly not for instituting a ban on sale of fire arms to law abiding citizen, but the theory that if you enforce stricter gun laws crime will skyrocket doesn't work. Countries with strict gun control usually have a much lower violent crime rate. But there are other factors to be considered - education, poverty, etc...


What works then? Gun bans dont work, its just a criminal heaven. Gun control? I feel a move towards strict gun control would just be one step closer to a total gun ban. 
If we lived in some of these countries you speak of, we would have such a mess because the gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets as they do now. Modern gangs are the mobsters of the 20s.
[/quote]

We have to institute smart gun control to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have them. Mental health testing would be one and closing any loopholes that enable people to obtain them without a proper background checks.

Have you no idea where you're going with the " gangstas wouldn't be allowed to run our streets", lost me completely
[/quote]

A lot of our gun violence is because of gang or drug activity. Why not focus more on gangs and drugs than guns.

So a private sale would have to go through a FFL? I can agree with that somewhat if some of the greedy bastards lowered their outrageous transfer fees.

Gang and drug violence is a HUGE part of Americans gun violence problem. For some reason we allow this behavior to continue. Why not attack the root issues? Issue stricter drug/gang crimes?
[/quote]

Sure, we definitely need to work to defeat gangs; as far as drugs go - the sooner we stop investing in the stupid unwinnable "war on drugs" and decriminalize at least some of the drugs now considered illegal the faster the black market for illegal drug sales dissipates and that income is taken from the drug lords, terrorists and other scumbags. It's the same thing we had during the Prohibition - all these gangsters got rich and powerful because booze was illegal.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> Sure, we definitely need to work to defeat gangs; as far as drugs go - the sooner we stop investing in the stupid unwinnable "war on drugs" and decriminalize at least some of the drugs now considered illegal the faster the black market for illegal drug sales dissipates and that income is taken from the drug lords, terrorists and other scumbags. It's the same thing we had during the Prohibition - all these gangsters got rich and powerful because booze was illegal.


exactly. as i stated above. i see other forms where every two weeks people harvest 2-4lbs of weed for a value of 4-8k. if that were legal what would happen to the price?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Legalize or de-criminalize? Having been there and done that, i would personally not want to see drugs legalized. I can agree on maybe de-criminalizing some, ie pot under certain weight. What advantages do we have by legalizing heroin and crack? Sure, you would deflate the black market, but at what cost?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Ex0dus said:


> Legalize or de-criminalize? Having been there and done that, i would personally not want to see drugs legalized. I can agree on maybe de-criminalizing some, ie pot under certain weight. What advantages do we have by legalizing heroin and crack? Sure, you would deflate the black market, but at what cost?


what a man does with his own body is his own business until he steps on the right of others. if i want to shoot heroin every day, who is the government to tell me not to? that's freedom. it's not different than the freedom to own a firearm.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

mdrs said:


> Legalize or de-criminalize? Having been there and done that, i would personally not want to see drugs legalized. I can agree on maybe de-criminalizing some, ie pot under certain weight. What advantages do we have by legalizing heroin and crack? Sure, you would deflate the black market, but at what cost?


what a man does with his own body is his own business until he steps on the right of others. if i want to shoot heroin every day, who is the government to tell me not to? that's freedom. it's not different than the freedom to own a firearm.
[/quote]

While not under the influence of a drug, I can control myself.

Can you say that for someone hopped up on PCP? Meth? Heroine?

I see where your comig from, and sure... if you wanna do something in the privacey of your home that does not effect others lives... then fine. The problem arises when these people enter the outside world high as kites and I feel drug addicts cant control themselves to act in any kind of responsible manner in public.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't think we should decriminalize everything at once either if only because I don't want to see half of the country addicted to crack and the other half addicted to valium. If we can start slowly by decriminalizing mary jane and taxing the hell out of it, imagine what boost it would be to the economy. Then gradually move to other stuff. One thing's for sure - recreational drug users should not be punished by being put in already overcrowded prisons to serve their sentences alongside hardcore criminals.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Ex0dus said:


> Legalize or de-criminalize? Having been there and done that, i would personally not want to see drugs legalized. I can agree on maybe de-criminalizing some, ie pot under certain weight. What advantages do we have by legalizing heroin and crack? Sure, you would deflate the black market, but at what cost?


what a man does with his own body is his own business until he steps on the right of others. if i want to shoot heroin every day, who is the government to tell me not to? that's freedom. it's not different than the freedom to own a firearm.
[/quote]

While not under the influence of a drug, I can control myself.

Can you say that for someone hopped up on PCP? Meth? Heroine?

I see where your comig from, and sure... if you wanna do something in the privacey of your home that does not effect others lives... then fine. The problem arises when these people enter the outside world high as kites and I feel drug addicts cant control themselves to act in any kind of responsible manner in public.

[/quote]

fortunately we don't allow people to drink except in the privacy of their own homes.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> Legalize or de-criminalize? Having been there and done that, i would personally not want to see drugs legalized. I can agree on maybe de-criminalizing some, ie pot under certain weight. What advantages do we have by legalizing heroin and crack? Sure, you would deflate the black market, but at what cost?


what a man does with his own body is his own business until he steps on the right of others. if i want to shoot heroin every day, who is the government to tell me not to? that's freedom. it's not different than the freedom to own a firearm.
[/quote]

While not under the influence of a drug, I can control myself.

Can you say that for someone hopped up on PCP? Meth? Heroine?

I see where your coming from, and sure... if you wanna do something in the privacy of your home that does not effect others lives... then fine. The problem arises when these people enter the outside world high as kites and I feel drug addicts cant control themselves to act in any kind of responsible manner in public.

[/quote]

fortunately we don't allow people to drink except in the privacy of their own homes.
[/quote]

I figured that was gonna come. If you put alcohol on the same level as heroine, pcp, lsd, etc etc...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

as a substance that changes how one acts after imbibing said substance? yes. as i see it, i can go out in public high and not bother anyone. if i do bother someone, find deal with me then, but not before. i'm not saying side effects are the same but imagine how much money we'd STOP wasting on "criminals" that use these drugs in their own homes, just to start. how many cops would learn to be cops instead of chasing BS numbers for some war on drugs. you can't support "most" of our freedoms.

as i said, same as guns.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

mdrs said:


> as a substance that changes how one acts after imbibing said substance? yes. as i see it, i can go out in public high and not bother anyone. if i do bother someone, find deal with me then, but not before.
> 
> as i said, same as guns.


Me carrying a gun and being in public high as hell on pcp is not the same to me. 
Me carrying a gun, I can control myself and my actions.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/lsd/f/lsd_faq05.htm

-Its sedative and anesthetic effects are trance-like, and patients experience a feeling of being "out of body" and detached from their environment.

-PCP was used in veterinary medicine but was never approved for human use because of problems that arose during clinical studies, including delirium and extreme agitation experienced by patients emerging from anesthesia.

-One drug-taking episode may produce feelings of detachment from reality, including distortions of space, time, and body image; another may produce hallucinations, panic, and fear. Some users report feelings of invulnerability and exaggerated strength. PCP users may become severely disoriented, violent, or suicidal.

-Repeated use of PCP can result in addiction


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

again, this "may" do that. if i'm in public committing a crime, prosecute me. if i'm not committing a crime, don't criminalize something that "may" cause me to commit a crime. if stuck in a traffic jam i "may" start ramming my way through traffic. should we outlaw traffic jams?

i'm not dumb, though. i know that the likelihood of doing something stupid when under the influence of acid or pcp is much better than the traffic jam example. but it makes no sense for the government to declare a war on something by making it so much more profitable for criminals to do. if you want to stop something, stop creating the market. honestly, most drugs wouldn't really lead to crime. most people who smoke weed or drop acid won't be interested in doing so then joining non users for some out on the town fun. look at places in europe where these drugs are legal. if you want to smoke weed outside of a residence, you go to places where you can chill with like minded people and hang out.


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

mdrs said:


> again, this "may" do that. if i'm in public committing a crime, prosecute me. if i'm not committing a crime, don't criminalize something that "may" cause me to commit a crime. if stuck in a traffic jam i "may" start ramming my way through traffic. should we outlaw traffic jams?
> 
> i'm not dumb, though. i know that the likelihood of doing something stupid when under the influence of acid or pcp is much better than the traffic jam example. but it makes no sense for the government to declare a war on something by making it so much more profitable for criminals to do. if you want to stop something, stop creating the market. honestly, most drugs wouldn't really lead to crime. most people who smoke weed or drop acid won't be interested in doing so then joining non users for some out on the town fun. look at places in europe where these drugs are legal. if you want to smoke weed outside of a residence, you go to places where you can chill with like minded people and hang out.


Spending money to outlaw drugs is by and large a waist of time money and effort. Mdrs is pretty much correct on this one. Criminalize the criminal act IE harming someone else, but if someone wants to be dumb enough to do a bunch of drugs, that's on them. think about this though...if we weren't wasting all that money on trying to stop drugs we could spend the money on helping the people who are addicted. Just like with everything else people are so focused on fixing the symptoms of the problems instead of fixing the problems...criminalizing drugs is a band aid at best and not a very good one...it's one of those cheepo off brand bandages you get from the family dollar. If we legalize drugs we can regulate them, and make them safer, and build more sophisticated systems around helping people kick their addictions.....throwing people in jail just because we are ashamed of what they do is not justice...especially if they didn't do anything to anyone but themselves. I don't support legalizing drugs, but i do belive that they should be decriminalized...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Graffight said:


> again, this "may" do that. if i'm in public committing a crime, prosecute me. if i'm not committing a crime, don't criminalize something that "may" cause me to commit a crime. if stuck in a traffic jam i "may" start ramming my way through traffic. should we outlaw traffic jams?
> 
> i'm not dumb, though. i know that the likelihood of doing something stupid when under the influence of acid or pcp is much better than the traffic jam example. but it makes no sense for the government to declare a war on something by making it so much more profitable for criminals to do. if you want to stop something, stop creating the market. honestly, most drugs wouldn't really lead to crime. most people who smoke weed or drop acid won't be interested in doing so then joining non users for some out on the town fun. look at places in europe where these drugs are legal. if you want to smoke weed outside of a residence, you go to places where you can chill with like minded people and hang out.


Spending money to outlaw drugs is by and large a waist of time money and effort. Mdrs is pretty much correct on this one. Criminalize the criminal act IE harming someone else, but if someone wants to be dumb enough to do a bunch of drugs, that's on them. think about this though...if we weren't wasting all that money on trying to stop drugs we could spend the money on helping the people who are addicted. Just like with everything else people are so focused on fixing the symptoms of the problems instead of fixing the problems...criminalizing drugs is a band aid at best and not a very good one...it's one of those cheepo off brand bandages you get from the family dollar. If we legalize drugs we can regulate them, and make them safer, and build more sophisticated systems around helping people kick their addictions.....throwing people in jail just because we are ashamed of what they do is not justice...especially if they didn't do anything to anyone but themselves. I don't support legalizing drugs, but i do belive that they should be decriminalized...
[/quote]

legalization is decriminalization. same thing, just different words. and if someone wants to do drugs, as you said "it's on them", IE my government shouldn't be bleeding money for people who chose to do drugs. i don't owe anyone rehab. that's why charities and many other free programs exist.


----------

