NRA?

[Hoyt]

Okay' date=' let's keep this simple.

 

So you actually own a gun yourself while you're pissing on the 2nd Amendment.

 

Hoyt, what firearms WOULD you allow me to own?

 

 

What other Constitutional rights and Amendments would you like to see cast off as "wrong" in your eyes?

 

 

 

My Dad made one thing very clear to me;

Never be stupid enough to pull out a gun unless you're smart enough to use it.

 

Never pointed a gun at another human in my life, hope I never have to....

Things I DID point a gun at died quickly and cleanly.

 

Personal responsibility and accountability is not reserved solely for gun ownership.

It is the duty of EVERY American in every facet of living.

 

[/quote']

 

NeoCon, you can own any gun that you want and is legal.

 

But, I think we'd be better off without so-called assualt weapons, however you want to define them. I know that is having a hard time penetrating, but it's my belief. If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Go caress you assualt weapon in peace.

[NeoConMan]

WHAT THE FxCK IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?

 

In 40 years of shooting, I have YET to find out what that is.

 

If you insist on playing along with the Brady Ban/Clinton lunacy and following along with Eric Holder and Obama on their definitions, you truly are a fool. Get mad all you want, you're a fool.

 

 

Maybe you should spend some time caressing the Constitution and Bill of Rights - after you read the Declaration again.

[daerious]

Hoyt,

Why do you think we would be better off without assault weapons. (I don't argue the definition, we know what you mean when you say assault weapon). I am really interested to understand your reason behind saying we would be better off without them, especially since history has proven over and over, and our forefathers unanimously agreed, if we were to not have the right to own modern weapons on par with what our military uses, we would cease to exist as a democracy and would instead be subjected to the tyranny of the next dictator that chose to enforce his will on a populace. You could argue that they never specifically stated we should have weapons on par with the military, but that was obviously their intent. There is no doubt that the intent is for the people to keep themselves capable of a revolution, and obviously you are better capable of this revolution when you are armed equally (or better) than the military you are revolting against.

 

The point is not a revolutionary war. The point is that by keeping ourselves equipped for such a war, we prevent such a war. As long as our government fears us, the every day citizens, we will have democracy (as best we can i guess... its slipping every day). When our government has disarmed us (or by your suggestion, virtually disarmed us in comparison to their military), there is no doubt the result will be loss of all liberty.

[NeoConMan]

I still want HIS definition.

What is an "assault" weapon.

 

By contrast, is there a massage weapon?

 

A handshake weapon?

 

An insult weapon?

 

 

Same as the Hate Crime bullsh!t.

Is there a Love Crime?

 

This is where the Liberals PROVE their lunacy.

 

 

 

Just for kicks, consider this.

I'm a Federalist (look it up) and I wholeheartedly embrace States rights under the Federal government.

BUT...

Almost every weapon I own is illegal 100 miles from here in California.

The guns I can carry legally anyplace I go in my state must be "secured" even if they are legal in California.

 

Who has the hightest gun crime rates?

Game the numbers anyway you want, California is where all the gun crime is.

 

Why do the states pretend to play God and Constitutional Scholar and interpret the basis of all our laws as their playground?

[Gitfidl]

The anti-NRA bunch and the anti-GUN bunch are idiots. Sorry Charlie, but it is purely emotional (which is how liberals are -- they are not thinkers -- they emote. Millions of people own guns and never kill anyone or anything. (Fact.) It is a small percentage that get into trouble with guns and they are rarely NRA members. They too are idiots (and liberals -- like the Virginia snipers) ... most of the wack-jobs who do those stand off things are liberals (and idiots).

 

Now when someone wants to do something really bad have you noticed they do NOT use guns? Guns are not longer effective weaopons (like bow and arrow). Mc Veigh used a rented truck and fertilizer (common enough stuff). The 9/11 hijackers use airplanes. Somebody else used anthrax. (see a pattern here) (it is already against the law to blow anything up with a truckload of stuff -- or to intentionally destroy a truck). It was against the law to hijack an airplane long before 2001. It is against all kinds fo laws to incubate weapons level germs (you know like Geneva and the UN and so on). It's against the law to make your own missiles (but North Korea already shot on at and hit Alaska!) They should be arrested (you know?)

 

So why do the PAC's get you all worked up and scare you? They make money doing it (no surprise right?) They get donations, sell magazines, sell advertisements, they even sell insurance and sun glasses etc. They tell you mice are 8 feet long if they could get you to buy the book.

So don't get mad at guns .. get mad at the PAC's that are screwing with your mind.

[Dynadude]

Don't waste your time Neo. People like this put themselves on a pedestal, and proclaim to know what's best for us all, even if they can't define what they oppose.

 

They would deny every American their rights, because they are scared a criminal will benefit from the same rights. The same crap Bush pulled on us with the Patriot act, only a gun ban would put us at the mercy of an out of control government, just like Europe and the UK.

[daerious]

If you really believe that disarming the people is best, why not move to a country that has been disarmed? Crime rates too high? Government too oppressive? Yeah, I understand... I wouldn't want to live in that kinda place either.

[surfpup]

I'm a Federalist (look it up) and I wholeheartedly embrace States rights under the Federal government.

 

Careful there, Neo. Remember, the Federalists (under George Washington and most particularly due to his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) actually favored a very strong central government. This led to the idea of implied powers that were not granted by the Constitution but not specifically prohibited by it - namely a national bank. The Federalists also favored protective import tariffs and national taxes. By contrast, Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party favored states' rights and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. You strike me more as this type. The terms federalist, democrat, and republican have clearly meant different things in different times!

[KSG_Standard]

Early in this thread, I asked, what is an assault weapon...My question was scoffed at and the answers I got were (I'm paraphrasing the responses):

 

an assault weapon is a weapon used for assault..

 

Shut up, I knew that somebody would ask what an assault weapon was, what a stupid question

 

All of you folks that are for the "assault weapons ban" should take a look at what the gov't definition of an assault weapon is, the words matter, the definition matters. Then ask yourself how banning weapons defined as "assault weapons" would make you safer. Criminals don't care what's banned or illegal, they are criminals and they will get their guns anyway they can. Criminals, by definition, don't care about the law. So who would be hurt or helped by the "Assault Weapons" ban?

 

On a side note, How come we never read about a mass shooting at a gun show, police station, armory, or BBQ cookoff? All of the mass shootings take place at locations where the criminal/nutjob knows that he or she is the only armed person or is likely to be the only armed person. I lived in Colorado when Columbine took place. Even though the police arrived early in the massacre, they remained outside to protect themselves and many kids were shot, after the police arrived. Same is true at the WV massacre. Just think what the outcome might have been if one or more of the teachers or administrators had been armed?

 

The police can't protect us from everything, in fact, they can't protect us from much, as they always arrive after the trouble has started. I have been robbed at gunpoint twice, pistol whipped once and shot at both times. The police didn't arrive at the scene until after the robbers were gone. I think that I stand a better chance at living, if I am responsible for my own protection. I carry concealed and I should be able to carry a high capacity pistol if I choose to. The "Assault Weapons" ban, prevents the sale of high cap magazines. So, law abiding citizens can't have them, but criminals can...

[Murph]

I've probably joined the N.R.A. 15 times. They bombard me with Insurance crap and I let it expire. Then I get nervous and join.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Ect.

 

I'm a big fan, just get tired of the junk mail.

 

Murph.

[Hoyt]

WHAT THE FxCK IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?

 

In 40 years of shooting' date=' I have YET to find out what that is.

 

If you insist on playing along with the Brady Ban/Clinton lunacy and following along with Eric Holder and Obama on their definitions, you truly are a fool. Get mad all you want, you're a fool.

 

 

Maybe you should spend some time caressing the Constitution and Bill of Rights - after you read the Declaration again.

 

 

[/quote']

 

You talking about the Constitution that approved owning muzzle loaders (hardly anything else)? Or are you talking about the founders who talked of "liberty" and all that but still endorsed slavery in the Constitution? Or both?

[KSG_Standard]

 

You talking about the Constitution that approved owning muzzle loaders (hardly anything else)? Or are you talking about the founders who talked of "liberity" and all that but still endorsed slavery in the Constitution? Or both?

 

What a dufus! The constitution does not say anything about what kind of weapons are allowed...Muzzle loaders were the only guns that existed at the time. The bill of right doesn't "approve" anything, it lays out our rights, that the government is not to infringe upon.

 

Some of the founders owned slaves, some did not. Read some history books and you'll see that some of the founders hated slavery, but they were in the minority so they had to compromise with the slave owner politicians and states, which outnumberd them. The founders did not endorse slavery. They wisely made a compromise that allowed for slavery to go away, to fail under it's own weight.

 

IMHO, you are just flat wrong...

[The Mick]

As I stated before It's all about Looks Tipper Gore and her P.M.R.C. went through pictures of weapons and picked out the scary ones. Folding stocks, Flash suppressors this kind of bull. There is no difference between a Mini 30 and an AK 47 as far as deadliness one just happens to look more frightening to an idiot who knows nothing about them.

[The Mick]

Which of these would you consider an assault weapon ?

A

B

[FennRx]

ksg, i also am waiting for the answer to your question.

[daerious]

"I think that I stand a better chance at living, if I am responsible for my own protection."

 

You made a very good point, but left out an important fact... the police, and no one else, has any legal responsibility to protect you. So while it is true that they can't, they also aren't required to, even if they can.

 

While our laws dictate that ONLY YOU are responsible for the individual security and protection of yourself and your family... there are still those who would like to disarm us...

[Hoyt]

 

What a dufus! The constitution does not say anything about what kind of weapons are allowed...Muzzle loaders were the only guns that existed at the time. The bill of right doesn't "approve" anything' date=' it lays out our rights, that the government is not to infringe upon.

 

Some of the founders owned slaves, some did not. Read some history books and you'll see that some of the founders hated slavery, but they were in the minority so they had to compromise with the slave owner politicians and states, which outnumberd them. The founders did not endorse slavery. They wisely made a compromise that allowed for slavery to go away, to fail under it's own weight.

 

IMHO, you are just flat wrong...[/quote']

 

 

Yea sure, they hated slavery so much that they specifically put the "Three-Fifths Compromise" into the Constitution that indicated they didn't even consider slaves as "humans." Read about it ole history professor.

 

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned legions of right wingers owning so-called "assualt weapons" (again, however you prefer to define them). Further, they sure didn't envision the many perverts who own them out of some irrational fear.

[Hoyt]

Which of these would you consider an assault weapon ?

A

B

 

 

If you have those hanging on your wall like a pinup, I'd say you have a problem.

 

Anything more than a six shooter and machete for protection is irrational in my opinion. If you don't like it, too bad.

[Gitfidl]

The police cannot protect much of anything. 911 will bullsh** and waste your time (I know) .. watched two burglaries go down .. the burglars laugh if you call the police. (They know it's stupid) 911 tries to get you to admit it's nothing and hang up. WHEN the cops get ther the burglars are gone (both times) and you have to coach them ("get your flashlight and I will show you where they broke in" ... the cop is looking like "do I have to? It's cold." So right away they tell you "We won't catch them, but we'll give you a report number" -- they won't even try to catch them). How much time do you think they will look for your murderer/ (and if your are already DEAD what does it matter?) Nope -- the police are NO protection. A lady at Green Thumb Nursery said she and her husband laid in bed withthe phone under the pillow while a burglar stood in the bedroom doorway and watched them ... finally the husband got tired of pretending he was asleep and they both got baseball bats and chased him down the street -- THEN the cops came and told them "he could have killed you" (No sh** **** Tracy. He could have embalmed us and held a funeral by the time the police get there). The dicks come by the next day and say "what can you tell us?" I say "I can tell you 911 isn't worth a fiddlers f***" and they say "we know." Everybody knows.

 

But what if you just want to own a gun so you can shoot at tin cans. Why should it be a crime. You can beat someone to death with a golf club but it is not a crime to own one. You can run over somebody with a car but it isn't a crime to own one. You can kill somebody with a claw hammer, a crow bar, a baseball bat, a Mag light, a hatchet, a guitar string, a butcher knife, a pool stick, a monkey wrench but it is not a crime to own one. So it is simply an emotion knew jerk liberal idiot notion and they get politicians to pass their idiot notions into law. AND it is against the Constitution but liberals do not care.

 

Now the liberals have the Congress and the White House and the Supreme Court so it will be crazier than the Mad Hatter. They spent a couple trillion (they criticized Bush?) in just 8 weeks which (disappeared) helped nobody and the stock market crashed further. They can't say where it went and have no idea what it did. It's the same as throwing money out of airplanes (over their friends houses). Nobody's mortgage got saved, nobody's job got saved, the depression is worse and the money's gone. They say" **we TRIED** and **it's CHANGE** Tried what? (to save labor unions) GM is going to fail anyway, the banks are broke anyway, there is no credit and foreclosures are rampant. Chrysler and Ford will close everything that can't sell. Most W-2 jobs will disappear. Baby Boomers are 65 and will overwhelm Medicare AND social security. Taxes will be more than 80% by 2012 -- so there will be NO reason to GET a W-2 job. (you will do cash jobs like the illegals). ANd that is what the liberals doing for **CHANGE**

 

Then the liberals will make up folk songs about it and sing about it in cafes.

[NeoConMan]

If you have those hanging on your wall like a pinup' date=' I'd say you have a problem. [/quote']

Um, I think they're on the floor when photographed - at least the traditional wood-stocked one on the bottom.

Not so sure about the really, really scary one on the bottom....

:-)

 

 

Anybody wanna take a wild guess at the make, model and caliber of those two guns?

 

How about the operating system, magazine type and capacity, mode of fire?

 

I'm a gun enthusiast, so it's easy for me, I could tell you every difference between them in seconds.

 

 

 

Anything more than a six shooter and machete for protection is irrational in my opinion.

If you don't like it' date=' too bad. [/quote']

What kind of mentally imbalanced sociopath goes after people with a machete?

Just a word of warning, inside a house (maybe yours even...) a bad guy would plant that machete in your ***.

Same with a baseball bat or golf club, you wouldn't stand a chance. I guarantee it.

 

Instead of Hoyt, we'd be referring to you in the past tense as the "popsicle" guy.

Better off with a butter knife.

 

Colossally stupid strategy, and your family relies on you?

[KSG_Standard]

 

 

Yea sure' date=' they hated slavery so much that they specifically put the "Three-Fifths Compromise" into the Constitution that indicated they didn't even consider slaves as "humans." Read about it ole history professor.

 

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned legions of right wingers owning so-called "assualt weapons" (again, however you prefer to define them). Further, they sure didn't envision the many perverts who own them out of some irrational fear.[/quote']

 

Have you ever read a history book? Do you know why the "three-fifths compromise" existed?

 

Since we live in a representational republic, the House is a reflection of the number of people in the states/districts. The southerners, many of whom were slave owners, wanted to gain seats in the house. Their method was to count slaves, so that their population would be increased and they could gain more congressman. The southerners did not intend to allow the slaves to vote or to participate in society, they only wanted them counted to increase the representation of their states in congress. The compromise came about so that the outnumbered "free" states wouldn't/couldn't get steamrolled in congress. I read about it in several books and studied it in College. You should try reading to, it's fundamental...

 

You equate perversion with owning a certain type of gun...That's just weird my freind...

 

pervert /v.

–verb (used with object)

1. to affect with perversion.

2. to lead astray morally.

3. to turn away from the right course.

4. to lead into mental error or false judgment.

5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.

6. to misconstrue or misinterpret, esp. deliberately; distort: to pervert someone's statement.

7. to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase.

8. Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal.

9. to convert or persuade to a religious belief regarded as false or wrong.

 

–noun 10. a person who practices sexual perversion.

11. Pathology. a person affected with perversion.

12. a person who has been perverted, esp. to a religious belief regarded as erroneous.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[KSG_Standard]

Hoyt,

 

The framers, founding fathers, writers of the constitution, intended for the people to be armed with weapons similar to the weapons used by the army. If we were following their intentions, then we should be armed with automatic weapons similar to today's US Military. You keep your machete my friend and I wish all the best for you...

[Hoyt]

. . . . . .

 

–noun 10. a person who practices sexual perversion.

11. Pathology. a person affected with perversion.

12. a person who has been perverted' date=' esp. to a religious belief regarded as erroneous.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/quote']

 

Glad to see you found the correct definition. Do you caress your guns, are they your "babies"?

 

As to the founders, the fact they allowed slavery is enogh for me. The fact they didn't consider them whole, should be enough for anyone. The fact many owned and abused slaves, should enrage us all. And let's not forget they denied women the vote, and allowed killing Native Americans for their land.

[KSG_Standard]

I'm enraged by your ignorance....Slavery (as it existed prior to 1865) is over...Seriously, brother, pick up a book, it will do wonders for you.

 

Cheers.

[Hoyt]

What kind of mentally imbalanced sociopath goes after people with a machete?

Just a word of warning' date=' inside a house (maybe yours even...) a bad guy would plant that machete in your ***.

Same with a baseball bat or golf club, you wouldn't stand a chance. I guarantee it.

 

Instead of Hoyt, we'd be referring to you in the [i']past tense[/i] as the "popsicle" guy.

Better off with a butter knife.

 

Colossally stupid strategy, and your family relies on you?

 

NeoCon, how many times have you had your house broken into by someone intent on harming you or your family? Yea, I know it only takes once -- but I think you are irrational and a bit scared.