Gun Control

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;25406 wrote:

If I collected everything I liked I'd be broker than I am All my guns are practical, Glock for up close, Ak close to long medium, and the .308 for reaching out and touching. I'd like to get a .12 gauge for the house, but who wants to clean up someones head from the walls?

Yeah.....really. Talk about 'spray and pray'. I guess it's 'spray, pray and then scoop up brains'. Very Happy

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;25433 wrote:

Society "progressed", technology progressed, that does not mean that our rights went away because things got better, if anything, with the number of voilent crimes on the raise, today MORE than back then we need to be able to defend ourselves. I'm sure they didn't have flag burning in mind either, but that doesn't mean our 1st amendment rights are no longer valid.

You are telling me that if the founding fathers had known UZIS would be in our future that the Right to own and Bear arms would be still written in its current form?

Come on now 92.

1 Reply

@Drakej,

Why wouldn't they allow it? So what if there is no practical reason for owning a Uzi or a .50cal Rifle. Can you think of any reason that you absolutely have to have a Enzo over a Metro? It is the same as comparing a .70cal Muzzle loader from the founding fathers day and age to a modern Barret rifle. They both do the same thing. A firearm is a firearm. I do not care if it is muzzle loaded or a .50cal rifle. Just as a car is a car. You cannot make the argument that the founding fathers did not have this in mind. Because they did. They knew that guns would be around longer then all of us. Guns of today are just more effective. Like 92 stated, they did not create the first amendment with flag burning in mind but guess what. When I saw some kids downtown sitting on flags "picnicking" I simply looked at them shook my head at there disrespect and felt just fine because I was exercising my right to bear arms and conceal and carry at that same instance.

0 Replies

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;25973 wrote:

You are telling me that if the founding fathers had known UZIS would be in our future that the Right to own and Bear arms would be still written in its current form?

Come on now 92.

Can you tell me how an Uzi is different than a Glock 17? I am just going to assume that you can't without looking it up, because if you could, you wouldn't even make this ridiculous assertion, unless you think semiautomatic handguns should be banned too.

0 Replies

@Drakej,

Well lets see How abut FULLY Automatic and a standard clip of about 33 extra rounds.

I don't think any guns should be banned, if you had been here for more than two posts you would know I just played devils advocate on this thread.

You are walking a fine line of the personal attack area, I suggest either come at an argument with points of debate and fact or go back to which ever forum this kind of thing was okay at.

Have a good day

1 Reply

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;26011 wrote:

Well lets see How abut FULLY Automatic and a standard clip of about 33 extra rounds.

I don't think any guns should be banned, if you had been here for more than two posts you would know I just played devils advocate on this thread.

You are walking a fine line of the personal attack area, I suggest either come at an argument with points of debate and fact or go back to which ever forum this kind of thing was okay at.

Have a good day

See, I knew you were going to tread into fully automatic, I kind of baited that one, sorry. The Glock 18 is also a fully automatic 9mm pistol, it as well as the Uzi are controlled by the BAFT, and have no restrictions under bills like HR 1022, which is why bills like that are completely useless, and nothing but lipservice. The point is that both, in semiautomatic form, release the exact same round, the exact same way, the exact same number of times per trigger pull, jiust one looks cooler. By the way, when you buy a semiauto Uzi, it comes with the same 15 rnd mag that a Glock 19 does, and BOTH have 32 round after market, and factory mags. Personal attack area, lol.

0 Replies

@Drakej,

I did kind of bait that, as I knew you would bring up full auto, but it had purpose...

Glock 298 rounds in full auto

Fully automatic Glock 18 pistol, completely legal, like most full autos, short barreled rifles, and suppressors. All you have to do is get a Form 1 filled out, turn it and the required fingerprints, and passport photo, a $200 tax fee, and voila.

The point is that semiauto "assault rifles/pistols", which are the ONLY thing that HR 1022 covers. It does nothing what so ever to control any full auto version of the same weapon, such as an Uzi, or Glock 18, or Browning .50 belt fed machine gun, M16A2s, Mac 10's etc...it is pure lipservice. They are all control through the treasury, via the BATF.

Personally, I think the founding father would have LOVED firing 500 rounds from a handgun, they weren't a bunch of pussies.

It's very typical of democrats, offering bandaids instead of solutions. The guns are not the problem, the people that use them for crimes are. Impose REAL punisments for using them in crime, not slaps on the wrist. I would bet that a large portion of crime using firearms would be lessened. There are several statisical anylisis that show when law abiding citizens have the right to carry a weapon, and defend themselves, crime is reduced.

Quote:

You are walking a fine line of the personal attack area, I suggest either come at an argument with points of debate and fact or go back to which ever forum this kind of thing was okay at.

Lol

0 Replies

@Drakej,

LOL okay. You just won an argument good job. UNfortunately it was NOT one i was participating in. IF you want to get back to the debate come on in.

As for the LOL abut personal attacks. You lose all credibility with them even people that share your point of view will not take you seriously.

0 Replies

@Drakej,

My guns are very personal to me. I've given each one a name. I call my favorite, "MAGGOT"

1 Reply

@Drakej,

Mine is my Ruger 9mm she sleeps next to me at nigh, and sometimes even goes outside with me.

0 Replies

@Drakej,

I am having my doubts about this thread getting back on track but lets try shall we.

Do some of you feel that if bills like HR 1022 are approved will you feel safer at night? Because I my self will not. Criminals are criminals because they do not obey laws. Why would we want to take away a right from people that have done nothing wrong? I am a firm believer in trusting someone until they give me a reason not to. Why shouldn't I be trusted with a fully automatic weapon if I have done nothing wrong in the past?

1 Reply

@Drakej,

Drakej;26257 wrote:

I am having my doubts about this thread getting back on track but lets try shall we.

Do some of you feel that if bills like HR 1022 are approved will you feel safer at night? Because I my self will not. Criminals are criminals because they do not obey laws. Why would we want to take away a right from people that have done nothing wrong? I am a firm believer in trusting someone until they give me a reason not to. Why shouldn't I be trusted with a fully automatic weapon if I have done nothing wrong in the past?

The laws are made for PEOPLE not A person. and PEOPLE have proven that they CAN NOT be responsible with guns.

2 Replies

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;26368 wrote:

The laws are made for PEOPLE not A person. and PEOPLE have proven that they CAN NOT be responsible with guns.

Silly man, don't you know that you need guns to defend yourself against tyranny? That's what the Second Amendment is all about -- our God-given right to defend our land and people against TYRANTS.No....we can't go the way of the UK and Australia. We can't give Government and/or any would-be, omnipotent political entity unlimited power over us. Never. I will gladly die fighting NEW WORLD ORDER potentates.
:AR15firing: :rocketwhore:

1 Reply

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;26368 wrote:

The laws are made for PEOPLE not A person. and PEOPLE have proven that they CAN NOT be responsible with guns.

Bullscheisse. Law-abiding citizens have proven that they are PLENTY responsible with firearms. Criminals have proven that they are irresponsible at LIFE, not with firearms. Firearms did not create criminals, criminal use them as tools, just as they use stolen credit cards, cars, bats, brass knuckles, etc....

As a matter of fact, I just got my paperwork from the ATF for my class III weapon. While it is only a short barreled rifle, on the same paperwork I could put a fully automatic machinegun, or sawed off shotgun if I wanted. Sounds like they think I am resposible enough to own such a weapon, and guess what, if HR 1022 passed yesterday, it wouldn't effect me being able to buy it one bit.

0 Replies

@Drakej,

If you look it as people being responsible with a certain tool then we should probably restrict everyone driving. How many deaths are cause by DUI, DWI, being "tired", playing with the radio ect. We need to look at firearms as tools. Just as a knife is a tool, or a car. They are all tools, and used responsibly they are great. But it is always those few that ruin it for the many. But it does not help that the general media demonizes firearms of all shapes and sizes. The biggest hurdle to over come is education of the general public. It is a huge up hill battle when no one shares the upside to something. And that does not apply to just firearms.

1 Reply

@Drakej,

Drakej;26396 wrote:

If you look it as people being responsible with a certain tool then we should probably restrict everyone driving. How many deaths are cause by DUI, DWI, being "tired", playing with the radio ect. We need to look at firearms as tools. Just as a knife is a tool, or a car. They are all tools, and used responsibly they are great. But it is always those few that ruin it for the many. But it does not help that the general media demonizes firearms of all shapes and sizes. The biggest hurdle to over come is education of the general public. It is a huge up hill battle when no one shares the upside to something. And that does not apply to just firearms.

You d man.:thumbup: :devilheadbang:

0 Replies

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;26378 wrote:

Silly man, don't you know that you need guns to defend yourself against tyranny? That's what the Second Amendment is all about -- our God-given right to defend our land and people against TYRANTS.No....we can't go the way of the UK and Australia. We can't give Government and/or any would-be, omnipotent political entity unlimited power over us. Never. I will gladly die fighting NEW WORLD ORDER potentates.

Guns? I thought it said something about owning and bearing arms. Were these small arms or fire arms or adjustable rate mortgages or swords, or knives, or what?

0 Replies

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;26239 wrote:

My guns are very personal to me. I've given each one a name. I call my favorite, "MAGGOT"

Mine is a WWI Colt .45 - got it from my grandfather. My brother and I used to use it to shoot sharks 20 years ago from our boat. Learned our lessons though. Now is sits at the ready in my bedstand.

0 Replies

@Pinochet73,

i keep my remote control for my tv handy :thumbup: im quick on the draw :cool:

0 Replies

@Drakej,

One thing, I may disagree with Scoob but at least he has a sense of humor. I mean, what grown up still goes by Scooby-Doo..?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know