Assualt Rifles

[theGibber1]

Scott I saw you started a thread on this already but its clustered up with other topics.. Thought I would start a new one.
I see some are throwing fits about a possible assault weapons ban. I for one think its about damn time. ON NEW PRODUCTION ONLY. I would never want the govt to go into any citizens homes and start seizing property.. but stop the production of them immediately.
Outside of the military what is the purpose of owning these things? They have no practical use not even for hunting.. Soooo you want one cause it looks pretty and you collect?? So what, get a new hobby.. What if I wanted to collect copious amounts of plutonium?? I might not ever use it but just collect it.. Too fucking bad. Some things you just cant have. Collect all the baseball cards you want. Or if you must collect guns buy another rifle or pistol but lets leave the machine guns for the military

 

[GoldenTaint]

The people who founded the country secured the citizen's right to defend himself against tyrannies foreign and domestic. What is the difference between the US government and a criminal gang? The difference is that the criminal gang isn't bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars. You can find all the stories you want about cops executing people, there's no other way to put it, and then being let off by government judges.

'Our' government has killed over a million Iraqis based on a pretext that turned out to be a flat pack of lies. I don't trust our government, it has proven it is untrustworthy. I do not give up my rights because sheep like you parrot the criminal gang's talking points.

Yeah, if I was Bongo Boy or Bushy II, I wouldn't want my victims armed either.

The USA can't crack up quickly enough.

Let you liberals go your own way. Every cause you support is crank, and you can't even figure out how destructive it is decades after it's been imposed on people who never voted for it.

The US will go the way of the Soviet Union, and the sooner it happens the better.

 

[ssd]

What really IS an "assault rifle"?

Because the military definition of an "assault rifle" is much different from the US legal / weapon ban definition.


I have to laugh when they talk about keeping these weapons out of the hands of criminals when this administration ran the "Fast and Furious" program.

Weapon bans essentially keep weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals will procure weapons regardless of any law. They are.....criminals.

 

[theGibber1]

The people who founded the country secured the citizen's right to defend himself against tyrannies foreign and domestic. What is the difference between the US government and a criminal gang? The difference is that the criminal gang isn't bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars. You can find all the stories you want about cops executing people, there's no other way to put it, and then being let off by government judges.

'Our' government has killed over a million Iraqis based on a pretext that turned out to be a flat pack of lies. I don't trust our government, it has proven it is untrustworthy. I do not give up my rights because sheep like you parrot the criminal gang's talking points.

Yeah, if I was Bongo Boy or Bushy II, I wouldn't want my victims armed either.

The USA can't crack up quickly enough.

Let you liberals go your own way. Every cause you support is crank, and you can't even figure out how destructive it is decades after it's been imposed on people who never voted for it.

The US will go the way of the Soviet Union, and the sooner it happens the better.

You must be somewhat new here or not around during election time when I was cracking heads with all the lefties.. If so you would probably know I am not a liberal. I vote republican. That doesn?t mean I cant exercise a bit of common sense. I am all for the second amendment and I don?t believe in a total weapons ban. However the second amendment is not impervious to regulation. For instance you cant go buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a fully automatic machine gun.. yet you seem to be fine with that???? What?s the difference?
I am all for gun ownership in the hands of responsible citizens and am even considering buying one myself now that I have kids and a family.
But this isn?t Sierra Leon. In my opinion you don?t need a AK47 for home protection. I haven?t read the story where a mans family was being invaded by multiple attackers and the only way he saved his family was by mowing down 20 or so intruders.. It doesn?t happen. The only times these weapons make news is when a sick fuck wants to take out as many people in a movie theater he possibly can at one time.

 

[theGibber1]

What really IS an "assault rifle"?

Because the military definition of an "assault rifle" is much different from the US legal / weapon ban definition.


I have to laugh when they talk about keeping these weapons out of the hands of criminals when this administration ran the "Fast and Furious" program.

Weapon bans essentially keep weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals will procure weapons regardless of any law. They are.....criminals.

Not saying take them out of homes.. Im saying lets at least stop making them.. Lets at least make them harder for criminals to get. James holmes bought most of his weopons online for god sakes.. too easy

 

[GoldenTaint]

You must be somewhat new here or not around during election time when I was cracking heads with all the lefties.. If so you would probably know I am not a liberal. I vote republican.

Republicans are liberals. It's what the parties agree on that matters, not what they disagree on. In America only trivial matters are open to genuine debate; the deeper questions, the only ones that matter, are kept off the table.

That doesn?t mean I cant exercise a bit of common sense. I am all for the second amendment and I don?t believe in a total weapons ban. However the second amendment is not impervious to regulation. For instance you cant go buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a fully automatic machine gun.. yet you seem to be fine with that???? What?s the difference?

Good point. I'm all for private citizens owning everything they need to make them equal to the tyrants in DC, including a lot more than machine guns and rocket grenades. Why aren't you? Fear is the only thing that will keep the DC criminals in line.

I am all for gun ownership in the hands of responsible citizens and am even considering buying one myself now that I have kids and a family.

That sounds like a wise decision. Contrary to the media's representation, only you can defend your own. Cops are just secretaries who show up after the facts and jot down some notes. The only crimes cops could prevent are the ones they commit.

But this isn?t Sierra Leon. In my opinion you don?t need a AK47 for home protection.

The second amendment isn't about home protection or hunting, it's about securing citizens' God-given right to defend themselves against the government.

Eric Holder and the various senators (most of them Jewish communists, a group with an extensive record of mass murdering civilians in Russia last century) pushing gun control all have armed gangs defending their bodies and families. They are obviously highly worried about you. But you have nothing to worry about from them? Looks to me like they know what they're doing to the public and they want to be darn sure the public has no means to get back at them if it ever figures it out.

I haven?t read the story where a mans family was being invaded by multiple attackers and the only way he saved his family was buy mowing down 20 or so intruders.. It doesn?t happen. The only times these weapons make news is when a sick fuck wants to take out as many people in a movie theater he possibly can at one time.

Not the point. Those who commit crimes by definition ignore laws, just as Adam Lanza gave not a hoot about the strict gun laws of Connecticut. The only effect the proposed laws would have is taking guns away from (white male conservative) citizens and leaving them defenseless against the (black/jewish/communist) government gang, and that is precisely the intention of the controllers.

 

[theGibber1]

Republicans are liberals. It's what the parties agree on that matters, not what they disagree on. In America only trivial matters are open to genuine debate; the deeper questions, the only ones that matter, are kept off the table.



Good point. I'm all for private citizens owning everything they need to make them equal to the tyrants in DC, including a lot more than machine guns and rocket grenades. Why aren't you? Fear is the only thing that will keep the DC criminals in line.



That sounds like a wise decision. Contrary to the media's representation, only you can defend your own. Cops are just secretaries who show up after the facts and jot down some notes. The only crimes cops could prevent are the ones they commit.



The second amendment isn't about home protection or hunting, it's about securing citizens' God-given right to defend themselves against the government.

Eric Holder and the various senators (most of them Jewish communists, a group with an extensive record of mass murdering civilians in Russia last century) pushing gun control all have armed gangs defending their bodies and families. They are obviously highly worried about you. But you have nothing to worry about from them? Looks to me like they know what they're doing to the public and they want to be darn sure the public has no means to get back at them if it ever figures it out.



Not the point. Those who commit crimes by definition ignore laws, just as Adam Lanza gave not a hoot about the strict gun laws of Connecticut. The only effect the proposed laws would have is taking guns away from (white male conservative) citizens and leaving them defenseless against the (black/jewish/communist) government gang, and that is precisely the intention of the controllers.

LUMI!

good to see you man. I always thought you were a bit out there but I did enjoy your posts. glad to see you hanging around again. Why the name change?

 

[GoldenTaint]

LUMI!

good to see you man. I always thought you were a bit out there but I did enjoy your posts. glad to see you hanging around again. Why the name change?

Would Lumi have pointed out that "gun control is goy control"? I don't think so.

 

[THE KOD]

Howard adds voice to US gun control debate

By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Updated Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:56pm AEDT


Photo: Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed after Australia's buy-back laws were passed. (Reuters: David Gray)

Former prime minister John Howard has added his voice to the gun control debate in the United States, arguing that Australia's laws have helped reduce the number of gun-related homicides and suicides.

Overnight, US president Barack Obama proposed a new assault weapon ban and mandatory background checks for all gun buyers, in a move that has prompted an angry response from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).

Writing in the New York Times, Mr Howard said he did not want to "lecture" Americans on how they should respond to Mr Obama's plan, but pointed to his experience in introducing tough gun laws following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Mr Howard said it was not an easy task, but he used the authority of the prime minister's office to curb the possession of such weapons.

"The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing," he wrote.

"Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role.

"But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife."

The Howard government instituted a national gun buy-back program that resulted in almost 700,000 guns being destroyed.

He says that is the equivalent of about 40 million guns in the United States.

Despite the strong opposition from some rural communities, Mr Howard says the new laws had majority support across Australia and they have been shown to be effective.

"There is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate," Mr Howard wrote.

"In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres - each with more than four victims - causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

"Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

Mr Howard concedes that any move to limit gun ownership in the US would face different challenges from Australia, including a more powerful gun lobby and a constitutional right to bear arms.

The NRA has launched a television advertisement in response to Mr Obama's gun control plan, questioning why his daughters are protected by armed guards while the president opposes putting such guards in schools.

Former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd has described the campaign as "one of the most offensive ads of all time".

"No political leader anywhere in the world, whatever their political party, should have to put up with this," Mr Rudd said on Twitter.
...................................................................

Austrailia seems to have the right idea about guns

we should start a buy back program immediately

and also violent games . Buy as many as we can so they are not passed on to the younger ones