Make Assault Weapons Ban Permanent - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 06:23 PM Thread Starter
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
Make Assault Weapons Ban Permanent

During his senate confirmation hearing, Eric Holder reaffirmed several of his anti-gun stances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ebLFmI2f0Y

The news media was all over the recent surge in gun buying, wonder why?
jyro is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 06:30 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyro View Post
During his senate confirmation hearing, Eric Holder reaffirmed several of his anti-gun stances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ebLFmI2f0Y

The news media was all over the recent surge in gun buying, wonder why?
Looks like he wants a nice, firm punch in the face.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #3 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 07:36 PM
Lifer
 
mopar63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Watauga
Posts: 1,136
We are so screwed, here comes the "change".

Mopar63

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
mopar63 is offline  
 
post #4 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 07:46 PM
you m-m-m-m-make me happy
 
stinginstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,644
Speaking of Holder, here's a snippet about closing Gitmo:

"There are possibly many other people who are not going to be able to be tried but who nevertheless are dangerous to this country," Holder said. "We're going to have to try to figure out what we do with them."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-gop-grilling/

So he's acknowledged that these are really bad people that should never be free. They're at Gitmo where they are not a threat to us and they're secured. He wants to close Gitmo and just figure out what to do with them down the road?
stinginstang is offline  
post #5 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 08:08 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
The ban being permanent is the least of our worries, as it's only the first step. These demented fucks have two years of unfettered free rein to stick it up our asses.


I can't wait to see how deeply they sink it...
Fox466 is offline  
post #6 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 08:23 PM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
I don't want to open up the whole firearms topic, I firmly support the right to own hand guns and rifles. But why does any member of the general public need to own a fully automatic machine gun?

You can't hunt with it, and it seems to be a poor choice for home defense. With the muzzle velocity & rate of fire those things have even the shortest burst that missed would put 5 bullets in your neighbors house.....and possibly in the neighbors.

Seems to be just a macho thing. "Hey look, I'm a badass I got an AR-15".
White trash wagon is offline  
post #7 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 08:32 PM Thread Starter
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles. There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to its enactment.

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.
jyro is offline  
post #8 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 08:32 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
I don't want to open up the whole firearms topic, I firmly support the right to own hand guns and rifles. But why does any member of the general public need to own a fully automatic machine gun?

You can't hunt with it, and it seems to be a poor choice for home defense. With the muzzle velocity & rate of fire those things have even the shortest burst that missed would put 5 bullets in your neighbors house.....and possibly in the neighbors.

Seems to be just a macho thing. "Hey look, I'm a badass I got an AR-15".
An AR15 is NOT a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a semi auto hunting rifle in a black trench coat. ONLY class III licenses can own fully auto assault rifles, and those number 1 in 1000 or less. So the general public, as you say, CAN NOT own or get their hands on true assault rifles. And you can hunt with it, provided you can shoot at least as well as my 11 year old. Hell, as far as that goes, I have a deer rifle that will do FAR more damage than any of the "assault" rifles commonly available on the market today...

It's really quite simple, if you take the blinders off...
Fox466 is offline  
post #9 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:03 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
Who the fuck hunts with a AR-15? Just a lame, disguised exuse for you crazy guns nuts to own guns you really dont need.
You don't need to be a giant fucking lardass, yet you are. Care to explain that one?

Plenty of people hunt with AR-15's. It's a great gun for hunting hog because of its high capacity. Hunting hog is a great help to small farmers as dead a boar is a boar that isn't tearing up their fields. Thus, AR-15's serve quite a good purpose, especially for a fatass like yourself.

Slowhand is offline  
post #10 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:09 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
LOL @ the insecurites jumping off the screen.
Please do elaborate on your baseless claim, chickenfucker.

Slowhand is offline  
post #11 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:14 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowhand View Post
Please do elaborate on your baseless claim, chickenfucker.

sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #12 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:17 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
It's just funny neither of you can make a legitimate exuse for owning such things so you immediatlely jump to personal insults. Obviously two VERY insecure guys. bahahahah
Your use of the word "excuse" tells me all I need to know about your stance on this, but I'll ask anyway...


Before you tell everyone to justify their possessions, answer this:
Why does one have to have a reason?


Do I need to justify my car? I could just as easily walk, right?
Do I need to justify my air tools? Hand tools get the job done.
Why do I have HD TV? Do I have shortcomings or other repressed emotions that make me think broadcast TV is inferior?


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #13 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:23 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92Notch View Post
I know about 4 different people who hunt with ar15s and a couple more with m16s
I do it with a fucking HOWITZER! So what if i got a 3inch peter??
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #14 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:25 PM
Lifer
 
Trip McNeely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,396
Why do people fix up their cars? Do you really need all of that power? No, you dont.
And if you want to get into semantics. Cars kill more people than guns every day.

CANADIANS = DOUCHERS

Trip McNeely is offline  
post #15 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:32 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
You know that I do, but then I'd have to exchange more crying PM's with a grown man again you can't take a lil heat cuz he's "sensitive".

<----crackin up over here.
Keep crackin up... but I'd still like to hear your answer to this. I really can't wrap my head around your logic (or lack thereof)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Your use of the word "excuse" tells me all I need to know about your stance on this, but I'll ask anyway...


Before you tell everyone to justify their possessions, answer this:
Why does one have to have a reason?


Do I need to justify my car? I could just as easily walk, right?
Do I need to justify my air tools? Hand tools get the job done.
Why do I have HD TV? Do I have shortcomings or other repressed emotions that make me think broadcast TV is inferior?


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #16 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:38 PM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
Spoken like a true gun nut. You don't NEED a gun like that, you just WANT one to make up for other shortcomings. A hangun or a shotgun, I can understand that. But these other over the top guns are just asking for trouble. Most people who ever own a gun never even use for any kind of self defense. It's just an ego stroke an a false sense of security.
You don't need a double cheeseburger either, would you like the government to step in and tell you that?

I don't need the government telling what I do or don't need, it's immaterial.

1/19/09, the last day of Free America.
Pericles "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. "

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams


Sean88gt is offline  
post #17 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:39 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean88gt View Post
you don't need a double cheeseburger either, would you like the government to step in and tell you that?

I don't need the government telling what i do or don't need, it's immaterial.
bam!! Lmao!!
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #18 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:45 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
The idea behind the second amendment is that the government should fear the people and answer to them. It would be hard for that to ever come to be if the people weren't allowed the arms that the military issues to its most basic infantryman.

Not only that but then you get into the slippery slope issue of line item exclusions.

If some of you guys want to keep your eyes closed to the way tyranny works then by all means continue on your way. Don't expect me not to hedge against it though.
AL P is offline  
post #19 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:52 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
The idea behind the second amendment is that the government should fear the people and answer to them. It would be hard for that to ever come to be if the people weren't allowed the arms that the military issues to its most basic infantryman.

Not only that but then you get into the slippery slope issue of line item exclusions.

If some of you guys want to keep your eyes closed to the way tyranny works then by all means continue on your way. Don't expect me not to hedge against it though.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #20 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:54 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Exactly. Good luck getting someone to sign up to go door to door and take guns in this country. You couldn't pay me enough. And the beautiful part is that is how it should be.
AL P is offline  
post #21 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 09:56 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
It's just funny neither of you can make a legitimate exuse for owning such things so you immediatlely jump to personal insults. Obviously two VERY insecure guys. bahahahah
I made my legitimate reason and you ignored it. What the fuck am I supposed to do?

Slowhand is offline  
post #22 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:41 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 383
I don't normally agree or reference Jeff Cooper much, but his disparragement of the .223 as a 'poodle-shooter' is pretty sound. The only reason people get worked up over it is the use by the military. It isn't that great a round. Those who hunt hog/deer with it often need the extra rounds just for that reason.

Let's just hope the anti-gun faction does not ever really learn about guns. Then they may do some real damage, like ban the .30-06.
1fastdem is offline  
post #23 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:45 AM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fastdem View Post
I don't normally agree or reference Jeff Cooper much, but his disparragement of the .223 as a 'poodle-shooter' is pretty sound. The only reason people get worked up over it is the use by the military. It isn't that great a round. Those who hunt hog/deer with it often need the extra rounds just for that reason.

Let's just hope the anti-gun faction does not ever really learn about guns. Then they may do some real damage, like ban the .30-06.


The .223 was designed to wound, thus taking two out of the fight, as you have the wounded soldier being helped by another soldier. Very simple premise...


And they could care less which gun it is, just that it is a gun. They want us unarmed and poor. Hence the "politicians prefer unarmed peasants" mantra...
Fox466 is offline  
post #24 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:49 AM
Old Timer
 
Dacotua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flower Mound
Posts: 4,027
I hunt from time to time with a AR-15. The reason I like it? Theres a ton of accessories for it and its easy to modify myself. I can get bull barrels, different calibers, trigger assemblies, etc...

You can actually go out and buy a BAR in 30-06 thats semi-automatic. Its a lot more powerful than a AR-15.

My problem with any gun ban, especially when it comes to assault rifle bans, is its just all cosmetic.

Example. Why would a gun be an Assault rifle if I put a Pistol Grip stock on it, but if I leave a factory stock on it, its not an assault rifle? Makes no freaking sense. And when was the last time you heard someone bayoneted in a crime? Doesn't happen.

Whats next? The Federal Government going to ban cars with over 100 horsepower? Ban Sports cars because they look like people are going to race them?

How about ban the electronics in your house because you might shock yourself?

Ban what you can and can not say in public (Overthrowing your freedom of speech?)

Banning guns is Overthrowing your right to bear arms as defined by the constitution.

2006 Mustang GT
Dacotua is offline  
post #25 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 07:41 AM
In the field
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terrell, TX
Posts: 1,280
Hell, I hunt with my AR-15 all the time. I took a Javelina with it this year.


Black on Black 02' Z28
Lowered on Black Z06 wheels

"A bad day hunting beats a good day at work"
Pewter Y2K Z28 is offline  
post #26 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:15 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
Spoken like a true gun nut. You don't NEED a gun like that, you just WANT one to make up for other shortcomings. A hangun or a shotgun, I can understand that. But these other over the top guns are just asking for trouble. Most people who ever own a gun never even use for any kind of self defense. It's just an ego stroke an a false sense of security.
I actually partially agree with you, but there are reasons to hunt with a semi. (Ak..sks...ar...etc) I once took hunting as a rifle (30-06, 30-30..etc)/shotgun sport. However, I've recently become highly interested in hunting pig. From what I'm told by some Texas country folk is it is ideal to have a semi. In some cases if you were to miss the pig could decide to jack your day up. With a standard rifle (bolt action/lever/pump - high powered) you'd likely never get the 2nd shot off with the pig charging at you. While a semi will allow you to stay on target and take multiple shots as needed.

That's when I decided I wanted a semi, ak or SKS. An AR-15 is just a better looking rifle and costs more for those who desire it. (hunters, collector...etc)

So essentially you NEED a semi to hunt certain game.

Take care

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #27 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:19 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fort Worth, TX, Tarrant
Posts: 2,826
I used to hunt coyotes all the time with my ak47.

I see this as opening a door to more restrictions later.
Big Thumper is offline  
post #28 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:24 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Thumper View Post
I used to hunt coyotes all the time with my ak47.

I see this as opening a door to more restrictions later.
Another good hunting purpose.

I guess at one time I UNDERSTOOD why some folks did not think that normal citizens needed watered down versions over military weapons. However, I can see a valid need for it now - above and beyond collecting and the "home defense" argument.

I can see what is being said about this sort of thing just being a gateway to more restrictions as well. I'm seeing it left and right with other laws. (regardless of your opinion, smoking bans are a prime example)

Hell, if it were to go further we'll have plastic pelet guns for ourselves. (although, I still don't see the need for full auto weapons)

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #29 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:28 AM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
The idea behind the second amendment is that the government should fear the people and answer to them. It would be hard for that to ever come to be if the people weren't allowed the arms that the military issues to its most basic infantryman.

Not only that but then you get into the slippery slope issue of line item exclusions.

If some of you guys want to keep your eyes closed to the way tyranny works then by all means continue on your way. Don't expect me not to hedge against it though.
Al P, if you think a few good ole boys with AR-15's and M-16's can hold off the US Army, you don't know much about military technology!
White trash wagon is offline  
post #30 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:33 AM
Lifer
 
VETTKLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: TX Panhandle
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
Spoken like a true gun nut. You don't NEED a gun like that, you just WANT one to make up for other shortcomings. A hangun or a shotgun, I can understand that. But these other over the top guns are just asking for trouble. Most people who ever own a gun never even use for any kind of self defense. It's just an ego stroke an a false sense of security.

Wow, man.

Your freedom of speech does not supersede my inalienable right to bear arms, no matter how ignorant you sound.

VETTKLR is offline  
post #31 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:40 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Al P, if you think a few good ole boys with AR-15's and M-16's can hold off the US Army, you don't know much about military technology!

Military technology cannot beat a home-grown insurgency. I can't think of one example of it working in the last 100 years.
1fastdem is offline  
post #32 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:51 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fastdem View Post
Military technology cannot beat a home-grown insurgency. I can't think of one example of it working in the last 100 years.
Persective

On one hand, the US Military could destroy it's own citizens without breaking much sweat. Bombs, missles...etc. An infantryman would never step foot in a residential area until afterwards. Even without bombs...etc tanks, and highly trained Soldiers/Marines would destroy the locals.

!

On the other hand, which is more realistic.
-All out warfare is rarely used and if we're made to pussyfoot in Iraq it'll happen here.

-Military folks join and follow orders. Things get more difficult when you're asking the military to destroy their own people - most of whom are decent citizens. Also, those military folks may agree with whatever the citizens are so pissed off about.

-It would be political suicide (although it's probably past that point already when this discussion becomes reality) to order your own people killed.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #33 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:52 AM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fastdem View Post
Military technology cannot beat a home-grown insurgency. I can't think of one example of it working in the last 100 years.
That's the problem, you won't see much of an insurgency here. We've become a nation of self absorbed consumers, less than 1 in 20 would fight.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #34 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:55 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 383
Overwhelming force would just create more 'radicals'. Always happens.

To play the right-wing fears... A Ruby Ridge or Waco is just the 'government enforcing laws on a few wackos' but a full assault on gun owner would provoke a big response.
1fastdem is offline  
post #35 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 08:58 AM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceyko View Post
Persective

On one hand, the US Military could destroy it's own citizens without breaking much sweat. Bombs, missles...etc. An infantryman would never step foot in a residential area until afterwards. Even without bombs...etc tanks, and highly trained Soldiers/Marines would destroy the locals.

!

On the other hand, which is more realistic.
-All out warfare is rarely used and if we're made to pussyfoot in Iraq it'll happen here.

-Military folks join and follow orders. Things get more difficult when you're asking the military to destroy their own people - most of whom are decent citizens. Also, those military folks may agree with whatever the citizens are so pissed off about.

-It would be political suicide (although it's probably past that point already when this discussion becomes reality) to order your own people killed.
The amount of military that would go AWOL would be astounding.

It only takes one guy to stand up to a government and for people to hear about it for a movement to start.

1/19/09, the last day of Free America.
Pericles "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. "

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams


Sean88gt is offline  
post #36 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 09:09 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 579
[QUOTE=JKD;5523309]Spoken like a true gun nut. You don't NEED a gun like that, you just WANT one to make up for other shortcomings. A hangun or a shotgun, I can understand that. But these other over the top guns are just asking for trouble. Most people who ever own a gun never even use for any kind of self defense. It's just an ego stroke an a false sense of security.[/QUOTE]


kinda like taking martial arts?, like having a fast car? Need is not the point, americans have millions of things we don't "need". Its about freedom and choice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2B...eature=related

its still "we the people"right?

"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause"

"a lesson lived is a lesson learned, everyday is a lesson."

obama is a man made disaster
mightyp is offline  
post #37 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 09:17 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,194
I think Im gonna buy another machine gun today to stroke my massive cock.
David is offline  
post #38 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 09:42 AM
Lifer
 
Hass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
Spoken like a true gun nut. You don't NEED a gun like that, you just WANT one to make up for other shortcomings. A hangun or a shotgun, I can understand that. But these other over the top guns are just asking for trouble. Most people who ever own a gun never even use for any kind of self defense. It's just an ego stroke an a false sense of security.
Do you think you are Neo from the Matrix and can dodge bullets? Where can I get a trench coat like yours?
Hass is offline  
post #39 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 09:42 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
I think Im gonna buy another machine gun today to stroke my massive cock.

Aim both of those away from me, please.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #40 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:10 PM
JKD
Gracie Jiu Jitsu Addict
 
JKD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The weapon is only as good as the person wielding it.
Posts: 16,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by VETTKLR View Post
Wow, man.

Your freedom of speech does not supersede my inalienable right to bear arms, no matter how ignorant you sound.
.

[QUOTE=mightyp;5523861]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
Spoken like a true gun nut. You don't NEED a gun like that, you just WANT one to make up for other shortcomings. A hangun or a shotgun, I can understand that. But these other over the top guns are just asking for trouble. Most people who ever own a gun never even use for any kind of self defense. It's just an ego stroke an a false sense of security.[/QUOTE]


kinda like taking martial arts?, like having a fast car? Need is not the point, americans have millions of things we don't "need". Its about freedom and choice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2B...eature=related
Martial arts and guns dont even compare. My foot or hand isn't going to pass through my adversary and hit innocent bystander. My foot/hand cant be stolen for some thug to do drive-by's with. Gimme a break lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hass View Post
Do you think you are Neo from the Matrix and can dodge bullets? Where can I get a trench coat like yours?
Yes. No trench coat, just the ninja uniform.

Shrimp'n ain't easy....

Last edited by JKD; 01-20-2009 at 07:56 PM.
JKD is offline  
post #41 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:14 PM
Bullet Sponge
 
forever_frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cooper, Tx
Posts: 3,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
LOL @ the insecurites jumping off the screen.

Why do I need an AR 15? Same reason people need 10 second cars. Because I want it and, unlike cars, the Constitution recognizes my natural right to own whatever I want. Back when the founders drafted it, the 2nd amendment was there to acknowledge that when the government gets too big, too tyranical that we could defend ourselves and replace that government with one of "The People."

Coincidentally, it's the only right that has the addition "Shall not be infringed."
forever_frost is offline  
post #42 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:22 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
I don't want to open up the whole firearms topic, I firmly support the right to own hand guns and rifles. But why does any member of the general public need to own a fully automatic machine gun?

You can't hunt with it, and it seems to be a poor choice for home defense. With the muzzle velocity & rate of fire those things have even the shortest burst that missed would put 5 bullets in your neighbors house.....and possibly in the neighbors.

Seems to be just a macho thing. "Hey look, I'm a badass I got an AR-15".
You got to remember why the Second Amendment was created originally. Yes, it was so men can defend themselves and their families. Yes, it was to insure the capability of hunting. But it's also there to allow the population to combat its government or other governments if it ever had to. It's a protection of the people in general.

Further, I'd want a personal one so I can train on a platform similar to what I use in combat.

Big government wants to keep us from harming ourselves in their eyes, much like they want to keep people from eating high cholesterol cheeseburgers. What it boils down to is taking away freedoms in small enough increments to where people are okay with the little steps and miss the giant picture. The type of people taking away these things will always exist. First it's things like full auto capabilities and high capacity mags. Then once that becomes status quo, they take away certain weapon sizes or features. Then they start limiting weapon calibre. After so many generations, you're left with a BB gun to defend your home...as long as the BBs are small enough and the weapon isn't CO2 operated. The people and their irrational fears don't change, just a progression along a slippery slope.

Last edited by exlude; 01-16-2009 at 05:30 PM.
exlude is offline  
post #43 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:32 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_frost View Post
Why do I need an AR 15? Same reason people need 10 second cars. Because I want it and, unlike cars, the Constitution recognizes my natural right to own whatever I want. Back when the founders drafted it, the 2nd amendment was there to acknowledge that when the government gets too big, too tyranical that we could defend ourselves and replace that government with one of "The People."

Coincidentally, it's the only right that has the addition "Shall not be infringed."
true story
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #44 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:33 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
The idea behind the second amendment is that the government should fear the people and answer to them. It would be hard for that to ever come to be if the people weren't allowed the arms that the military issues to its most basic infantryman.

Not only that but then you get into the slippery slope issue of line item exclusions.

If some of you guys want to keep your eyes closed to the way tyranny works then by all means continue on your way. Don't expect me not to hedge against it though.
And now that I read the rest of the thread I realize you already covered everything I had to say
exlude is offline  
post #45 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:34 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
The "right to bare arms" was written WELL before semi/automatic firearms were available to the public. Gun nuts seem to forget this and abuse the privledge.
It was actually written before catridge based firearms were in common use. Using that logic I shouldn't be able to own a .22 pistol. Fact is, the second amendment has withstood over 200 years of legal scrutiny for a reason and it is working exactly as intended. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.
AL P is offline  
post #46 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:35 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Al P, if you think a few good ole boys with AR-15's and M-16's can hold off the US Army, you don't know much about military technology!
And if you think the entire Army is going to pick up and turn on its people, you're crazy. You think we have bad AWOLs during Iraq? It wouldn't be shit relatively.

"I am an American Soldier. I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States..."
exlude is offline  
post #47 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 05:53 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Al P, if you think a few good ole boys with AR-15's and M-16's can hold off the US Army, you don't know much about military technology!
Tell that to someone who saw some action on Haifa street or in Fallujah and see what kind of response you get.
AL P is offline  
post #48 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 06:12 PM
JKD
Gracie Jiu Jitsu Addict
 
JKD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The weapon is only as good as the person wielding it.
Posts: 16,273
The genuis of the consititution is that it can be changed.

Shrimp'n ain't easy....
JKD is offline  
post #49 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 06:15 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
The "right to bare arms" was written WELL before semi/automatic firearms were available to the public. Gun nuts seem to forget this and abuse the privledge.
The Supreme Court says you're wrong. You should research before blindly turning your back on something.


US v. Miller (1934)

Among other things to come out of that case...

While defining "militia":
Quote:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In addition:
Quote:
Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #50 of 264 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 06:20 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKD View Post
The genuis of the consititution is that it can be changed.
And luckily, it isn't super easy.
exlude is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome