In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 180
Online now 430 Record: 5105 (2/14/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Because the Constitution doesn't specifically give us the right to do so like it does for the right to bear arms.
The liberals will manipulate that like they do everything else.
SEC SEC SEC!!!
The U.S. government is not my best protection if a van full of Mexican gangsters pulls up at my house out in the country in the middle of nowhere. And the U.S. government, with all of its "sheer amount of weaponry options," would not be able to overpower millions of Americans with semi-automatic rifles. That's the point. The majority of the armed forces would not turn against their own people. The government (or any other government) can't nuke the whole country. Even if they hit the big cities it would fall to the people in rural areas to protect themselves with their own weapons. Have you heard of the Revolutionary War? I hear the Brits had quite a few "weaponry options" compared to the stupid, poor, hick Americans
The government is not supposed to be more powerful than the people. That's what the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments, etc. are for. And the second Amendment is to ensure that the people can protect themselves if/when the government oversteps its bounds
The embattled 18th century colonial farmers won their American rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through force of arms and bloodshed. Such is the nature of tyranny. With the Feds making stealth end-runs on the 1st, and 4th amendments, I am not surprised by this frontal assault on the 2nd Amendment. Look at the NDAA legislation passed by our Federal legislators. That ended due process, my friends. The police are not there to protect citizens from crime. They are there to protect government interests after the crime occurs. That is why every American has the right to bear arms, not just in their own homes, but everywhere their life may be threatened by tyranny. I will be making my first-ever donation to the NRA in the coming weeks. I will also be purchasing assault and sniper rifles. I am moving from a large leftist-liberal city to a rural red-state region, and I will soon be strapping a massive, barely concealed hand cannon. I'm tired of NYPD officers freely spraying bullets around the Empire State building, hitting 9 innocent bystanders. I'm tired of a nutless billionaire mayor telling me I can't buy a >16 ounce sugary drink, that hospital labor & delivery floors must lock up baby formula, and that cops can stop and frisk me without probable cause.
First post in 17 months, hardcore lurking.
I rarely have anything meaningful to say
I wish more people would subscribe to this notion.
This is politics. I do not see this getting through the house. The dems would be more effective using an executive order. They are doing it this way so they can blame repubs for it failing. Dems in office are afraid to touch gun control. They knom that plenty of their supporters own these types of weapons. They do not want to anger those voters, but they certainly want to appease their supporters callinng for an assault weapons ban. And someone correct me if i am wrong, but has the govt defined exactly what an "assault weapon" is? I really don't know.
I'm not saying it's going to happen. But you can't tell me with certainty that it won't. I'm not a foil hat conspiracy theory guy, but people have a right to be able to protect themselves. You can't argue that, unless you have absolutely no belief in individual rights
And if you think it's nonsense talk because you think the U.S. government could easily overtake the country, you're wrong. The Army, Navy, Marines, etc. can't do crap if the people enlisted in them refuse to follow orders--which they would if people were rebelling because the government had become that bad
The problem is you can't tell me with certainty that your mentally ill cousin is going to take your peacefull assault rifle and kill a bunch of innocent kids. Sure there are wonderful gun enthusiasts that can handle these weapons, but America is done with the ones who can't. Have your gun, but Americans don't need an armory.
I want you to think about what you just typed b/c I'm shaking my head at your statement.
ALL guns are capable of killing a person, the design and intent of the manufacturer matters not. It doesn't matter if it was "specifically" designed to kill people b/c the fact of the matter is all of them can kill people if that's the intent of the user.
Tell me this. What is the difference between an assault rifle (.223) and a hunting rifle (.223)? Obviously, one looks "cooler" as if it's being used by Mil while the other looks like something the average Joe would use. A .223 round going through pink fleshy matter is going to look the same no matter which gun it was shot from. You can kill just as many people with a .223 hunting rifle with a 4 round mag as you can with an assault rifle with a 4 round mag.
Do I think we need to limit magazine size for people who own 20+ round mags on an assault rifle? No, but that's my personal opinion b/c I don't blame inanimate objects for the actions of humans. I don't blame video games and movies either, b/c I think people should be responsible for their actions. However, my father who is also a vet thinks magazine size should be limited, and he has a valid argument. Magazine capacity is definitely something that can and probably should be debated.
If I take two 9mm pistols with 10 round clips into a grocery store and kill 20 people do we need to outlaw pistols? This is the type of absurdity we're discussing.....quit being emotional about the topic and start using some logic and common sense.
"Assault" rifle is just a catchy name that people have targeted for political purposes. It's like banning Chevy trucks for drunk drivers and saying Fords are ok for use.
At the end of the day people kill people. I've never seen a gun load itself, walk down the street, aim at a target, and pull it's own trigger.
Yes I can tell you that with certainty. Buy a gun case and put a lock on it and then your mentally ill cousin won't be able to steal the gun. Gun owners have to be responsible for their own guns.
Using your logic, why are we allowed to have kids if we can't guarantee that they won't grow up to kill a bunch of kids?
And Ollie is completely right. "Assault Rifle" is a catchy name and has nothing to do with the "AR" in the guns' names. AR actually stands for ArmaLite, the manufacturer that originally made a particular type of rifle
I approve this message.
Clinton banned assault weapons so Tim McVeigh just made himself a bomb out of fertilizer and blew up the whole damn building, kids included. Why don't we ban fertilizer. John Wayne Gacey killed 33 young men and never fired a shot. If somebody in this free country wants to wreak havoc, they'll find a way to get it done.
If Obama is so dead set against this kind of thing ever happening again, even if it means compromising the Constitutional rights of the majority of sane, law abiding gun owners, why doesn't he do the same when it comes to profiling? Profiling may have aborted the 9-11 murder of 3,000 innocent law abiding citizens.
He has taken the advise of his ol buddy Ram Emanuel, "never let a good crisis go to waste" inorder to further your political agenda.
Um, 9-11 happened under Bush's watch. And he used it to get the Patriot Act passed which tramples quite a few Constitutional rights.
Contact Me for an Insurance Quote
The big difference between this attack and the one in Connecticut is that everyone in China was wounded, not killed.
Why don't we just institutionalize all of the people with mental disorders?
That would have a far greater impact on these things than gun control.
Think of all the innocent men, women and children killed by drunk drivers, probably more than from semi-automatic weapons. So let's make alcohol illegal. Oh, wait a minute. We already tried that. The only ones who ended up with it were the rich who could afford it, those who made their own or those who smuggled it in from another country. It was illegal but the only ones who did without were those who held to the law. Created quite a revenue stream for the unlawful. Do we really think a gun ban of any kind is going to solve the problem? It has more to do with the degeneration of the moral fiber of this country than any piece of equipment or material.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports