Mattndew76 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Only one is and its ancient Link to comment
datzenmike Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 The 2nd ammendment exists to make sure we have the means to exterminate our Government if the need arises.The Government has Ar-15s-WE get Ar-15s. Yes, civilians (armed or not) could, and have the moral right, to throw off a tyrannical government. I'm not looking it up but a severely doubt it says or means that. That's an interpretation... here's mine. This was 200 years ago and for a struggling new country who had fought for it's independence it had to have (armed) civilian volunteers ready to augment their army. I'm guessing that the previous British, when in control of the colonies, had severely limited this previously existing British right and they weren't about to allow that nonsense again. Further, I doubt there was much difference between a hunting rifle and a military one back then. Has anyone ever used a military grade rifle for home protection? ... well other than Al Pacino and his 'little friend'? wouldn't a shotgun be better or a hand gun? Can't walk down the street with one so must be for home or hunting. Today, hunting with a military grade rifle is the height or retarted. It's not skillful nor 'sporting' and you may as well buy your meat. It's fishing with a grenade. An attack on one type of gun ownership is an attack on all gun ownership is bullshit. Owning a tank is just a form of butching up, a fashion accessory like tattoos and a pit bull to look tough... simply because you can. If assault weapons are allowed and for the purpose of throwing off a tyrannical government by the public, why haven't you used them already???? Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Yes, civilians (armed or not) could, and have the moral right, to throw off a tyrannical government. I'm not looking it up but a severely doubt it says or means that. That's an interpretation... here's mine. This was 200 years ago and for a struggling new country who had fought for it's independence it had to have (armed) civilian volunteers ready to augment their army. I'm guessing that the previous British, when in control of the colonies, had severely limited this previously existing British right and they weren't about to allow that nonsense again. Further, I doubt there was much difference between a hunting rifle and a military one back then. Has anyone ever used a military grade rifle for home protection? ... well other than Al Pacino and his 'little friend'? wouldn't a shotgun be better or a hand gun? Can't walk down the street with one so must be for home or hunting. Today, hunting with a military grade rifle is the height or retarted. It's not skillful nor 'sporting' and you may as well buy your meat. It's fishing with a grenade. An attack on one type of gun ownership is an attack on all gun ownership is bullshit. Owning a tank is just a form of butching up, a fashion accessory like tattoos and a pit bull to look tough... simply because you can. If assault weapons are allowed and for the purpose of throwing off a tyrannical government by the public, why haven't you used them already???? The public cannot have an assault rifle already. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?? It's been banned three separate times in the last 100 years. So by assault rifle what is your definition of one? because an ambiguous name doesn't help. Generalizing doesn't help me understand your point. Please Define what qualifies as an assault weapon in detail? 1 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Hell I don't know that. If you are not allowed military grade weapons then there isn't much to argue about. I don't know what an assault weapon is, I don't think anyone agrees on one definition. When a hunting rifle self loads and hold 30 rounds and can select automatic fire and grenade launcher it ceases to be for hunting game. Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Yeah but nothing without federal approval is Automatic, nor can carry a loaded launcher. Get caught with any of this without the Feds approval and it's a huge fine, jail time, and the suspension of your 2nd amendment rights. This is already in place and has been for many years. Legal definition is all we need to go by. Opinion definition is broad and emotional. 2 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 The purpose of the argument raging now is to enact ambiguous elitist legislation with a fluid non definition. The current argument media wide is for any gun or rifle to be under this ambiguous umbrella. Or person they consider a dissenting threat to their political thought. Why else do these talking TV heads keep saying "assault rifle" then show a picture of something that is not that named object? It's purpose is to create an ignorant movement against an object vs telling the people the truth about radical ideology. These weapons don't perpetrate the crimes. The individual who has desire will use what ever means necessary in spite of even the most heavy handed legislation. Ignorance and convenience is the publics biggest folly. Not gun legislation. This is a complex matter but everyone wants to blame the least complex thing for the issue. 2 Link to comment
Z-train Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Yes, civilians (armed or not) could, and have the moral right, to throw off a tyrannical government. I'm not looking it up but a severely doubt it says or means that. That's an interpretation... here's mine. This was 200 years ago and for a struggling new country who had fought for it's independence it had to have (armed) civilian volunteers ready to augment their army. I'm guessing that the previous British, when in control of the colonies, had severely limited this previously existing British right and they weren't about to allow that nonsense again. Further, I doubt there was much difference between a hunting rifle and a military one back then. Has anyone ever used a military grade rifle for home protection? ... well other than Al Pacino and his 'little friend'? wouldn't a shotgun be better or a hand gun? Can't walk down the street with one so must be for home or hunting. Today, hunting with a military grade rifle is the height or retarted. It's not skillful nor 'sporting' and you may as well buy your meat. It's fishing with a grenade. An attack on one type of gun ownership is an attack on all gun ownership is bullshit. Owning a tank is just a form of butching up, a fashion accessory like tattoos and a pit bull to look tough... simply because you can. If assault weapons are allowed and for the purpose of throwing off a tyrannical government by the public, why haven't you used them already???? that's what I like about you mike-you never tire of being wrong.First off you're a foreigner-so when it comes to OUR Constitution, you should just shut the fuck up,as it's none of your business.But I like you so I'll let it slide. My interpretation is correct.Your's is wrong.The second amendment exists so we can kill every fucking politician in the country IF needed. civilian volunteers ready to augment their army? Wrong again-They would be FIGHTING the army. Military grade? Just WTF does that mean? My Mossberg 590 shotgun is in use right now by our troops. Did you know it is illegal to hunt with an Ar-15 or any 5.56 variant because it not powerful enough to take game? there goes your high-powered rifle theory right out the fucking window. Owning a tank is my fucking RIGHT. So is owning a belt fed machinegun and hand grenades ,all of which I AM licensed for. My wife bought a M-1 Carbine. Nice small package and she could one hand it if the need arose.A 12 gauge has too much recoil for her. As to the tank(s) http://auctionsamerica.com/events/all-lots.cfm?SaleCode=LC14&CFID=169234805&CFTOKEN=a00d0e5c2a84f66b-C2BE8B2F-AA66-4583-E997B6BE6CB43F19&jsessionid=84305a8ca41ce99d0a6313224f182a633c32 If anyone has pockets deep enough ,you could own any vehicle here.I was fortunate to be in about half of those vehicle's this past week. They all are operational. America is just a bitchin' place. 3 Link to comment
john510 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 The guy could have just as easily, if not more easily, barricaded emergency exits and set the whole place on fire. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people it doesn't require a gun. How does one guy barricade exit doors in a nightclub with 300 people in it ? Unlikely anybody would have died. Link to comment
Z-train Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 How does one guy barricade exit doors in a nightclub with 300 people in it ? Unlikely anybody would have died.Really? http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/21/deadly.nightclub.fire/ 2 Link to comment
125 CSL Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 I may have overlooked it,........but the real question is,..How can someone with his extensive record of violence, postings, and downloading buy anything? Link to comment
240zness Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 I may have overlooked it,........but the real question is,..How can someone with his extensive record of violence, postings, and downloading buy anything? He works for gov 2 Link to comment
MikeRL411 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 He works for gov Which brings up just how thorough the background checks are or can be! In 1957 I applied for the standard background security check before the Government was ready to grant my pre-comissioning USAF 2nd Lieutenant security clearance. I blew their minds when I revealed that my Great Uncle in Ireland had 29 children, and that all of them had between 5 and 7 children each! And he was not the only Great Uncle / Aunt that I had. With this single source [not to mention all his brothers and sister's families] of over 200 second cousins [from him alone and multiple other relatives] in a foreign land, they gave up! "Well, what the hell, we have never been at war with Ireland in a lond time" was the final decision [despite all the Irish General officers that served on both sides in the Civil War] and they just checked out my domestic USA relatives. All of whom were US Citizens. There are limits as to what the so called checkers can possibly do! We are a nation of immigrants, and the immigrants must face a falange of Goverment inspectors who have absolutely no knowledge of foreign languages or familial nomenclature customs! That explains why so many Italian families were tagged with the place of their birth, nomenclatere of the relative that was to claim them, or departure port, not their familial patronimic names. Reference the "God Father" series for an example. 1 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 I may have overlooked it,........but the real question is,..How can someone with his extensive record of violence, postings, and downloading buy anything? Not one but two gun stores denied this buyer. One of the stores actually called the FBI to alert them 1-2 weeks Before this happened, but the agency shrugged it off. 4 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Like I said.....gubment problem....not guns. Imagine if it was a Republican administration....we wouldn't hear the end of it...remember Katrina?....hypocrisy much? Link to comment
Z-train Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Why do they keep electing STUPID? http://wtnh.com/2016/06/17/malloy-asks-gun-sellers-to-refrain-from-selling-guns-on-fathers-day/?utm_source=www.ccdl.us Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Because liberalism is a mental disorder. 2 Link to comment
HRH Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 You should read the quote on the bottom of my signature. Link to comment
125 CSL Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Not one but two gun stores denied this buyer. One of the stores actually called the FBI to alert them 1-2 weeks Before this happened, but the agency shrugged it off. Gun store calls the FBI, what are the odds it would shrug it off? Unless ordered to do so higher up in the chain of command. The more information that comes out the more this stinks of fast and furious gun deal #2. 1 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 You should read the quote on the bottom of my signature. Your signature is by no means the definition of today's liberals, get an updated version. Link to comment
HRH Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Remember: "Never hate in the plural." Or, you can't judge a group of people by one definition. ;) Hence, assholes can be white, black, purple or green. But one white asshole doesn't mean they're all assholes. Link to comment
paradime Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Because fear of liberalism is a mental disorder. Conservative/Liberal Yin/Yang. One can not exist without the other. Choosing is losing. Link to comment
Dolomite Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Gun store calls the FBI, what are the odds it would shrug it off? Unless ordered to do so higher up in the chain of command. The more information that comes out the more this stinks of fast and furious gun deal #2. You're on to something here, between fast and furious and gun runner, you have sandy hoax and this. It's devious assed anti rights folk trying to keep people scared into giving up rights so a new world order bullshit agenda can be pushed. All the idiots that fall for scary words like assault weapon when referring to a low power semi auto help the real problem get swept under the rug. Big gubment wants to stay big, they could care less about your rights as long as it fills their pockets. The media feeds mindless drivel to keep sheeple occupied while more and more freedoms disappear. I fear that the general population will not wake up to it until it's far too late, or possibly not at all. The only reason those in power want to disarm civilians is to make rebellion less of a threat, to not admit this is equal to an ostrich with its head in the sand. 1 Link to comment
q-tip Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 You know what happened to the last group of Americans the handed over their firearms "for their own good" they got fucking massacred. Wounded knee, look it up. 2 Link to comment
VFR800 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 You're on to something here, between fast and furious and gun runner, you have sandy hoax and this. It's devious assed anti rights folk trying to keep people scared into giving up rights so a new world order bullshit agenda can be pushed. All the idiots that fall for scary words like assault weapon when referring to a low power semi auto help the real problem get swept under the rug. Big gubment wants to stay big, they could care less about your rights as long as it fills their pockets. The media feeds mindless drivel to keep sheeple occupied while more and more freedoms disappear. I fear that the general population will not wake up to it until it's far too late, or possibly not at all. The only reason those in power want to disarm civilians is to make rebellion less of a threat, to not admit this is equal to an ostrich with its head in the sand. Most of this is what George Carlin had in parts of his show and he's spot on. You know what happened to the last group of Americans the handed over their firearms "for their own good" they got fucking massacred. Wounded knee, look it up. True,the biggest killer of US citizens is the US government not Al-Queada or ISIS or Soviets etc, 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts