freaking insaine............................

[rattler]

the Demo's are in control of the senate and house for less than two months and they are already trying to reinstate the "assult weapons" ban that didnt do jack squat to drop crime rates the first 10 years it was inplace........................you wonder why im so against these ppl...................can we just say screw Iran and nuke DC?

 

[Clint]

I feel stupid lol... but what's the difference between an assault weapon and a regular gun?

 

[rattler]

not a damn thing and thats the problem............................they are throwing iffy descriptions out and calling things assult weapons that most definatly are not. an "assult rifle" is a rifle capible of fully automatic fire......................they are attempting to make a bunch of semi automatic rifles and such illegal because they think they are "evil"...................

the last "assult weapons" ban lasted from 1994 to 2004 and did ABSOLUTLY NOTHING for crime rates................why do you ask? BECAUSE CRIMINALS PAY ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ATTENTION TO LAWS. HENCE THE REASON THEY ARE CRIMINALS! all the assult weaopons ban does is take away firearms from LAW ABIDING citizens such as myself. at the moment i have one rifle that qualifies as an "assult rifle" under their proposed law. hell my WIFE is looking for a rifle that the call an assult rifle, a Ruger Mini 14. its a rifle that MY wife wants and she hates my SKS and doesnt like AR15's.

you guys who say republicans are bad really want to vote your safety into the hands of ppl that wish you to be defencless?

 

[Clint]

Dude my dad has a ruger lmao. He must be a gansta.

I always thought the dems were kinda stupid about the gun laws. I don't care if you have guns. They do need to realize that criminals won't care about the law. It's stupid./

 

[Bugweed]

No, just a new Goverment that follows the rules in the Constitution. Not to mess with our lives, but to RUN THE DAMN COUNTRY. Infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is just another form of Nanny Goverment where the "Elite" run us and tell us every move to make. And in spite of all the genius' on this forum, taking away freedom of choice did INDEED start with a harmless looking law called the seat belt law. I know many don't understand it, but it was painted as is for the "good of the people". BS! So they could control you in every facet of your life. Now its the guns, soon it may be your very plants in jeopardy in the name of conservation. We need new parties in power. Those who follow the rules, and the will of the people. We own this Goverment, but they know psychology real good, and know how to scare you away from changing their Status Quo. Please, you guys, WISE UP!!!!

 

[quogue]

NY still has that useless law on the books, & NYC is getting outta hand with Bloomy.
Looks like Ima do some shopping before the prices go up again.
I've had 2 "assault rifles" and an "assault shotgun" for years, the only thing they do is go to the range and punch holes in paper, destroy garbage and bust clays, these politicians would have you believe they make you go mad and go on killing sprees.... makes you say "it's the criminals stupid!!"

 

[quogue]

No, just a new Goverment that follows the rules in the Constitution. Not to mess with our lives, but to RUN THE DAMN COUNTRY. Infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is just another form of Nanny Goverment where the "Elite" run us and tell us every move to make. And in spite of all the genius' on this forum, taking away freedom of choice did INDEED start with a harmless looking law called the seat belt law. I know many don't understand it, but it was painted as is for the "good of the people". BS! So they could control you in every facet of your life. Now its the guns, soon it may be your very plants in jeopardy in the name of conservation. We need new parties in power. Those who follow the rules, and the will of the people. We own this Goverment, but they know psychology real good, and know how to scare you away from changing their Status Quo. Please, you guys, WISE UP!!!!

They take away our guns "for our own good" and they'll REALLY be able to control us...

 

[Finch]

I support a assault wepons ban. Its OK to have guns, but no one needs the sheer volume of fire that these can put out. There is nothing living that you legally can use these with their full potential on. What are you gonna do with it, mow down a whole flock of snow geese with one gun? No one really needs one. They just want one to have one. Having guns should be a given- you should have them. But that does not mean you should have every kind of gun you want.
The risks far outweigh any meager benefits this gun gives to the regular owner.

 

[nepenthes gracilis]

So what if a ban is initatied? You realize how hard that would be to control? Its a futile attempt. If you want a rocket launcher, you can get one. Plain and simple! Not sure if a rocket launcher would be an "assault weapon", more of a tactical weapon i suppose. Hell, who wants an assault weapon anyways when you can go for a sniper themed arsenal?

 

[Clint]

I support a assault wepons ban. Its OK to have guns, but no one needs the sheer volume of fire that these can put out. There is nothing living that you legally can use these with their full potential on. What are you gonna do with it, mow down a whole flock of snow geese with one gun? No one really needs one. They just want one to have one. Having guns should be a given- you should have them. But that does not mean you should have every kind of gun you want.
The risks far outweigh any meager benefits this gun gives to the regular owner.

Why not? I see no reason why you can't shoot down a flock of birds as long as it's within the legal limit. (I think that's stupid but if someone else wants to do it legally, I say knock themselves out) I don't see any reason not to have something just because you want it.

Why doesn't it mean you should have every kind of gun you want? Last time I checked this was america... Land of the free. Oh wait, keyword WAS.

Sure, personally guns are stupid I think and I would never have one and I agree that the risks do outweigh the benefits, for me. However, that's just my opinion and I support anyone else who wants a gun, of whatever kind,no matter how many, 100% as long as they have the license. It's not my business or yours or my dogs who has what and how many as long as they have the proper license. I do support those mandatory background checks.

I support guns drugs and hookers. I'm going to hell.

lmao

 

[Bugweed]

Then scoot over, JLAP, I just might be coming with you! However, I think God is a whole lot different than the Evangelical Right want to force on us. God doesn't play favorites, or punish anyone before their time, and Gays and Lesbians DO have the right to marry, co-exist, and live and love with the rest of us. Oddly enough, the God I serve is inclusive, not exclusive. Besides, if you know The Book, no sin is above another except blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So if youhave spit on the sidewalk, and that is a sin, you are as "bad" as any gay person, murderer, adulterer, so choose your place in line with them. Maybe, we can take away a few of the "straight" folks rights too. Can't get married sir, ma'am. "Why Not??!!" "You both have moles on your faces. Not perfect enough for the imperfect!!!"
As I have read, and believe, Thier is none righteous, no not ONE! Off the high horses, and get back to stopping the Government from running roughshod all over us in the name of freedom. A name you may know, but I have in fact, lived in.

NANNY GOVERNMENT: WHEN THE FEDS IN THIER "RIGHTEOUSNESS" THINK THEY HAVE BECOME OUR MOTHERS, AND OUR FATHERS, AND RUN EVERY LITTLE ASPECT OF OUR LIVES. Maybe you will sit still and cower in your corner, but I will not keep quiet about this attack on our freedoms and liberties.

 

[Bugweed]

Anyone else?

 

[schloaty]

I support a assault wepons ban. Its OK to have guns, but no one needs the sheer volume of fire that these can put out. There is nothing living that you legally can use these with their full potential on. What are you gonna do with it, mow down a whole flock of snow geese with one gun? No one really needs one. They just want one to have one. Having guns should be a given- you should have them. But that does not mean you should have every kind of gun you want.

I don't quite agree with this - the right to keep and bear arms is there in order that we can rise up and remove the gov't if we really have to (doubt that will happen with us lazy, apathetic Americans, but that's the theory). If all we have are pea-shooters, what are we really going to do when (well, if) the goverment really gets out of hand (more than it already is)?

Buggy is a bit over the edge with his seat belt pet peeve; some of these laws and regulations DO make sense. Even though I HATE being told what to do, I recognize the benefit of the seat belt law. However, he is right in spirit - the Gov't should really butt out. Too many laws and regs are made to prevent law suits. Whoever heard of such bologna? If lawyers/judges would just toss out stupid suits, or institue a rule that if I sue you and loose, I pay your legal fees, much of this could be stopped.

Neither the dems nor the repubs really have their heads on straight. It seems they both focus on non-issues, turn them into issues, work everyone into a frenzy, and get some stupid law passed....When they should be concentrating on real problems. How do we get our keisters out of Iraq? How do we improve our education system? Etc Etc. Etc.

 

[Clint]

Lol Bug, thank you.


For starters we could have spent that THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THREE TONS!!!! of money that was recently LOST on schools... HOW DO YOU LOSE 363 TONS OF ANYTHING?!

But hey, our President can barely speak English and he got by! I'm sure the kids of today have nothing to worry about.

 

[quogue]

Right on Schloaty!! What a lotta people don't get is that the right to bear arms is not about "hunting privledges" but about truely giving "power to the people"
I hate those arguements "what do you need that for?" and "you don't need that to shoot a deer"
They just don't get it.

 

[droseraguy]

I have a reasonable right to bear arms that would both protect and provide for my family. Now if you think I can defend my family with a single shot bolt action rifle then your mistaken. Many of the "assault rifles" are incorrectly labeled as assault rifles. I will give up the right to bear full auto weapons, gladly ! Who can afford to feed these suckers. But wait a minute those guns ARE banned and seem to be readily accessable for the "criminal element". So banning assault weapons has no effect on the criminal and brings law abiding citizen joe into the realm of a criminal.

 

[Finch]

Why doesn't it mean you should have every kind of gun you want? Last time I checked this was america... Land of the free.

Well the constitution says you have the right to bear a gun, it does not state that you have the right to bear any gun. But i guess schloaty has a point about needing to remove the goverment if need be. But i feel JLAP is right in that you can get any gun, ban or not, if you look in the right places. Perhaps an solution and a problem all in one?

 

[Bugweed]

OVER THE EDGE??!!!!!!!! Well put up your dukes ya lil twit! LOL! I think not, the diguise they put it in is perfect. But it IS an infringement. You educate the people, not make their decisions for them. And yes, it saves lives, but that is still, or rather should be the choice WE make, not them. If someone is too stupid to understand the value of wearing "The Belt", but you do, then wear it and Godspeed. If you know the value of "The Belt", then don't wear it, and take your chances. Your life, your choice. People still get killed with seat belts, and without them, but I think choice, not force.

 

[quogue]

Not sure if a rocket launcher would be an "assault weapon", more of a tactical weapon i suppose.

Actually they're considered "Destructive Devices" like Grenade Launchers, Flamethrowers, Auto Shotguns... all the really fun stuff.:grin:

 

[schloaty]

Well the constitution says you have the right to bear a gun, it does not state that you have the right to bear any gun. But i guess schloaty has a point about needing to remove the goverment if need be. But i feel JLAP is right in that you can get any gun, ban or not, if you look in the right places. Perhaps an solution and a problem all in one?

Your point about the symantics - this was written when a single shot was the ONLY kind of gun. Governmnet OR private - so there was no need to distinguish.