Gun nut opens fire in Carson City, Nevada

[J.T]

Did krb ever explain why any normal person needs a pogo stick, a vw bug, an Obama bumper sticker, or tofurkey? or can we move ahead with banning all of those things?

[ConHog]

Did krb ever explain why any normal person needs a pogo stick, a vw bug, an Obama bumper sticker, or tofurkey? or can we move ahead with banning all of those things?

I think KRB couldn't prove why he shouldn't be banned from this thread and so he can't post in it.

Either that or he finally realized he's fighting a losing battle and ran.

[logroller]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

Well first off, I'm sorry you feel that way. I respectfully disagree and I will continue to defend Our rights despite the fact you care so little for them.
Secondly, it's 'well regulated militia' not well-armed, and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is ensure the security of a free State through mutual defense, not merely that of oneself. I don't think all people should have have firearms, only those who are law-abiding and responsible. And it is these people who are most impacted by gun bans, far more greatly than those who are are not.

[Kathianne]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

Oh you are correct, the natives would have been well served to have had the most modern weapons once upon a time. They didn't and the rest is history. You wish a repeat. Some disagree.

[ConHog]

Oh you are correct, the natives would have been well served to have had the most modern weapons once upon a time. They didn't and the rest is history. You wish a repeat. Some disagree.

Too true, I'm fairly sure that the Jews wish they had had some decent weapons in 1941 Germany as well.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't doubt that (remember the DC sniper?), but an AK47 or its brethern makes accuracy far less important for some average idiot.

You guys that love to own such weapons should really think about this issue (justication for owing an assault rifle - however that might be defined). Just screaming "I want one" won't wash in court if they are banned somewhere.

Um, we can thereby possibly stop the assholes who would walk in on an IHOP with an AK and mow people down en masse? The criminals and the corrupted will not stop owning these sorts of weapons simply because they are illegal. Hell, if every law abiding citizen stopped buying any fullly automatic weapon, and turned over their collections, I guarantee you that the criminals we really need to worry about would start carrying them as default load out. That's basically the difficulty that England hit when their ban on firearms hit- The good people all turned in their weapons, as was their duty, but the people you don't want to have guns still had theirs.

These killings always happen where guns are known to be banned. Guys may be crazy, but they're not stupid, same at columbine. The killers most definitely were not legally allowed to own the weapons they used to kill others with, and they didn't roll into a police precinct or military base and lay down fire. They took the weapons to school, where they knew the victims were unarmed.

As well, an AK is about the most ubiquitous assault rifle in the world. Do you have any idea how many militaries world-wide use them? It's like the Coke of the gun world to the M-16s Pepsi. Even if we'd outlawed it completely, and every law abiding citizen handed over their supplies, this guy still could have gotten one, either by getting it piecemeal, smuggled in, or otherwise. He wouldn't the first or last mass murder to wait until they had their "special weapon".

In the end, banning assault rifles helps only those who want to use them for vile purpose.

[DragonStryk72]

Too true, I'm fairly sure that the Jews wish they had had some decent weapons in 1941 Germany as well.

I imagine the Nazis might have rethought their "final solution" a bit more if the Jews had been able to put up more of a fight.

[DragonStryk72]

It was a combination of things, mostly Vietnam and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Between losing so many military members in Vietnam and needing so many military members because of fear of the Soviet Union there was only one place to get those numbers. That's right, the NG.

I'm sort of noticing that more of our massive fuck-ups happened during the Cold War. Installed the Taliban, Saddam, etc., we were just not paying attention at all outside of beating the russians.

[J.T]

Virgina Tech was a gun free zone...

[avatar4321]

Everybody seems to be forgetting that the intention of gun rights by the FFs was not to defend against criminals, but to defend against a criminal govt.

Individuals who are unable to defend their own life cannot defend their liberty.

[ConHog]

I'm sort of noticing that more of our massive fuck-ups happened during the Cold War. Installed the Taliban, Saddam, etc., we were just not paying attention at all outside of beating the russians.

Oh most certainly they were our main focal point.

[J.T]

Untitled.jpg
nice work, gunaphobes

[avatar4321]

I dont know, I got alot out of his posts here. In fact, he was the first one to mention amending the Constitution. Does that make him a shitFORbrains?
How permissive is he? You cant figure that out? I think I have pretty much got it. You see, he says to limit Nukes, you should amend the Cotus,,,,hmmm, since nothing goes beyond a nuke, we dont have to worry about anything on that side, and anything less than a nuke, would be included too, since he does include nukes.
So, it appears he thinks the amendments kinda, sorta, MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS FUCKHEAD, NOT WHAT YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL CONTROL FREAK CONSTITUTION DESTROYING ELITIST ARROGANT FAGGOT FRIENDS WANT IT TO SAY.

The Second amendment has to be one of the easiest to read and understand. I am truly amazed that there are some people who want to claim that it doesn't say what it clearly says.

We have the right to bear arms. If someone doesn't like that they should amend the Constitution. But until then, we still have the right to bear arms.

I am not a gun person. But the idea that we can't exercise a basic right such as self defense against others and against government is absolutely absurd.

Personally, I like knives and swords and using my own fists. Yes it's not as damaging as a gun. But it can get the job done in most circumstances.

[avatar4321]

Correct , and I clarified that I was only paraphrasing the supporting documents not quoting the COTUS.


I would also support your idea of not letting the POTUS co opt the national guard but rather keeping them under state authority.

I would have to concur with the national guard being in state control.

[avatar4321]

Yea, putting the president in control of the militia always kinda defeats the purpose of the militia as outlined in the second amendment. If I were the sort to distrust power-grabbing governments, I might think that's why the federal government took over control of the organized militia...

But who on earth is crazy enough to distrust power-grabbing governments?