Everytime you see someone tell you that Hitler disarmed his nation though its a great sign. A sign you should just leave them alone.
Everytime you see someone tell you that Hitler disarmed his nation though its a great sign. A sign you should just leave them alone.
So lets plan this out. I am crazy and want to make a statement. Do I bring a 9mm with a small clip? Of course not. I get my hand on the most deadly gun that shoots the fastest on the market and requires the smallest amount of reloads.
The defense for having a ar-15 is stupid on some insane level. If this was Syria, then yeah having that type of weapon really does make sense.
Hitler also raised a massive paramilitary force to effectively crush all rivals, silence opposition voices, and take control of the country in the first place. It wasn't tyranny STOPPED by guns, but tyranny ENABLED by guns held by private citizens. It works both ways.
False. If you don't like guns, don't own one. But don't tread on my right to own one. With this logic, the right to free speech shouldn't cover the internet or television, since back then they only had printable paper as a source for speech, besides of course form the mouth.
I'm sorry if you thought I was against research in some way or another, that is not true.
The media here might be making a bigger deal out of this than needs to be, but you never know. After the recent gun related shootings here, many democrats are actually trying to slam the gun control hammer. With the President on their side, this could turn the tide for them.
I believe the circular argument between cars-guns fits. If the only argument AGAINST responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns would be DEATHS, then cars, and many other objects should be banned as well. I will not mention it again if you dislike it that much though.
we all know criminals do not follow guns laws, it wont eliminate them at all. they made drugs illegal and kids can get them at school, prisoners can get them very easily.
its prohibition which made criminals rich and the common man was made into a criminal. why should the masses be hindered based off of the actions of a few?
Either will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. You can't purchase full-auto AR's in your local gun shop.
Also, your finger tires after about 20-30 trigger pulls done as quickly as possible.
In the hands of law-abiding citizens, it's the most poignant weapon for self-defense purposes, far surpassing the inaccuracy of handguns and shotguns, and much more effective than bolt-action long guns.
Last edited by kleinlax21; 2013-01-17 at 04:48 PM.
This is basically all my opinions and thoughts on the matter. He says it better than I could.
So ignore all context the law was written? With that logic everybody (no background checks, they are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment) should be allowed to have a fully armed M65 Atomic Cannon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon ) in your backyard if you can afford it, right? It's arms... fuck the context.
Last edited by Kryos; 2013-01-17 at 10:10 PM.
Atoms are liars, they make up everything!
Way to warp what I said =] What context am I ignoring exactly?
I was only using his logic to apply to a different amendment. He said it should only apply to the current counter part of the time the amendment was written. For the first regarding free speech, with his logic this would exclude laws covering the internet and many other things.
Free speech is the same free speech you had back then. It's opinions and you can tell them. And yes they are regulated. Every private forum like this one can censor whatever they like.
The guns (arms) back then and the guns today are worlds appart. It's a day and night difference. So you logic is flawed.
They could not shoot more than twice at that time had a horrible bad aiming system and then had to reload (and that took long). So with a weapon that is only a little bit more dangerous than a knife or a knife on a long stick it's easy to allow that. But guns that can kill people from a distance, hitting them before they even hear the shot or guns that can kill 10+ people in a few seconds are just not the same and should not be in the hands of civilians. If you don't see the context and the difference you just don't WANT to see it.
Last edited by Kryos; 2013-01-17 at 10:25 PM.
Atoms are liars, they make up everything!
Mediums to spread speech are worlds apart as well. They did not have something as advanced as the internet at all. Private "forums" back then were also regulated, so that point is moot.
Where in the 2nd amendment does it state guns should be (or can be) regulated by killing power, reload speed or anything like that at all?
You are just shooting off opinions here. If you don't see that, you don't WANT to see it.
don't take away my freedoms or liberties because you are afraid or think they are stupid. Don't disarm me because bad guys do bad things. Disarming me will not stop that, or even hinder it. Thats already been shown.
Regardless if you care to admit it or not, we live in a violent culture. We are a country that loves our guns (5 million NRA supporters can't be wrong). It is incredibly naive to think those whom which these proposed bans are pertaining to will actually comply with them. I don't see the "assault rifles" missing from the urban areas if Chicago, and they have some of the most stringent laws in the country. The only thing a proposed ban would do is infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens... Which is something true Patriots will not stand for.
I have read most of the threads in this post, and I have learned this: liberals will be liberals, conservatives will be conservatives. Just as the case with topics such as pro-life/pro-choice and religion, neither side will ever see the side of the other, and both think the other is either misinformed or ignorant.
All I can speak for is myself. Having served in the US Army and being issued an M4,it is the weapon I am most comfortable with. I can maintain it, fix it and shoot it accurately. Though owning a military-issue M4 isn't an option, those that feel the same as I do have the option of owning the (single shot) civilization variant. If you feel that owning a (Imo mislabeled) "assault rifle"... Don't buy one. If you don't support firearms in general... Don't buy those, either. Ultimately, it is your decision on how you chose to defend yourself and your family (if you would even do so), so the choice is yours. That is freedom.
What happened in Sandy Hook was both unforgettable and unforgivable. God only knows I couldn't live knowing I lost a child. But at the same time, is it best to honor the lives of the little ones by stripping the rights (and tools of defense) that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died to defend??? I'd like to think not...
In the end, all that matters is that you stand up for what you believe in. Whether you're anti-gun, or an active 2nd amendment supporter, we have fought for that right to chose our side, which is why our country is so great. We have the right to decide. Just remember to stick to your guns (metaphorically)... Always stand for what you believe in, even if you're standing alone.
Obama says he will consider invoking executive order to pass some of these measures into law. In the wake of that news, gun sales have increased. In the meantime, the White House is meeting great resistance form the Countrywide Rifle Association gun lobby. The NRA could be a mouthpiece for the country's $12 billion-a-year weapons market. Pay for your gun with a cash advance
You would have to be pretty weak to not be able to carry a 6lb rifle, 2 2lb handguns and 5lbs of ammo(a lot of ammo). He also had a vest for holding the ammo and probably either used holsters for the pistols or had them in pockets/waistband. Child soldiers carry AK rifles and ammo(which weigh more) so Im pretty sure he could handle it.
The final report is that he used the AR, thats all that matters, not the screwed up reporting that went out so they could get the scoop.
People still watch Piers Morgan and actually care about what that fucknut thinks? He's quite possibly the worst interviewer on TV right now. If you don't agree with him 100% on any little thing he whines and complains because you think differently. I miss Larry King The guy that he was interviewing was wasting his breath because you can't talk any sense to that assclown.
So good to be an ant who crawls atop a spinning rockCurrently playing: Bioshock 2,Far Cry 3
I consider shotguns much more reliable than semi auto carbines for self defense. First of all shotguns freak people out when they see them because they are big. Second you are much more likely to hit someone with a shotgun since it has an area of effect pattern instead of a single bullet(dont use slugs). And last, they are pretty easy to aim down the barrel or shoot from the hip and still hit something without a lot of practice.
But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.