Does Obama want to ban guns and rifles?
09-23-2008 | 04:05 PM
#31
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
________
MOTORCYCLE TIRES
Last edited by kyoung05; 03-30-2011 at 08:13 AM.
09-23-2008 | 04:10 PM
#32
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Why not? What if I want to stock these "armor piercing" bullets in case I am a victim of a home invasion robbery where the invaders are wearing body armor?
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
09-23-2008 | 04:17 PM
#33
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,127
From: Livermore
Car Info: LUMPY CGM 05 WRX
IMO to follow the second ammendment I should be able to posess any fire arm i may need to take on the government one day if needs be. It was created to protect us from a tyranical government so how does it make it fair if one day we have to stand against them throwing rocks while they are mowing us own with fully automatic fire. Im moving to austrailia. J/K
09-23-2008 | 04:17 PM
#34
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (10)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,426
From: 865 A Sweetser Ave.Novato, CA (new shop smell too)
Car Info: MY04 STi some call it a race car
Why not? What if I want to stock these "armor piercing" bullets in case I am a victim of a home invasion robbery where the invaders are wearing body armor?
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
agreed!
-Noah
09-23-2008 | 04:23 PM
#35
Why not? What if I want to stock these "armor piercing" bullets in case I am a victim of a home invasion robbery where the invaders are wearing body armor?
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
What I NEED is for the government to stop telling me what I do and do not need, what I can and cannot have, etc. CA's legislature, in all its infinite wisdom, deemed we did not NEED .50bmg rifles, and so now, we can't have any. They also insist that we do not NEED a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines. Why the hell not? What's next?
Now, with guns that doesn't work, but I'm willing to bet with bullets, some common criminal dude isn't going to go to great lengths to get Rhino Bullets. If he can get regular ones he will.
and what kind of robber wears body armor to rob your home?!? I'm sorry, but not going to happen. You don't have anything some stupid kid wants so bad he's going to dress up in body armor.
Fine, you want your armor bashing bullets, have them, but you can't possibly justify a reason to need them like you can a reason to protect yourself. It's a want and not a need, and it's a right to have the arms and ammo, but necessarily what kind.
Is it so hard to be a little sensible? I mean, I'd be cool to have a .50 cal rifle, or desert eagle, but both are worthless for hunting and also for self defense. Have you held either of those guns? They are HEAVY!
So lets be open about this, people WANT these guns, cause they can... not for hunting, and not for protection, which is what so many people are using for excuses.
Also, automatic weapons... sorry, doesn't work for hunting/protection... unless you are trying to commit genocide on the local geese population or have the entire block after you.
09-23-2008 | 04:24 PM
#36
09-23-2008 | 04:31 PM
#38
Slippery slope, wants/needs are very subjective and once we embark on that journey we generally start to see laws that do nothing but hurt people who follow the law. The AW ban was a good one, I mean who 'needs' an AR-15?
And the Black Rhino thing was a huge media exaggeration: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n10179804
And the Black Rhino thing was a huge media exaggeration: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n10179804
09-23-2008 | 04:36 PM
#39
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
The idea is that to make them harder to get.
Now, with guns that doesn't work, but I'm willing to bet with bullets, some common criminal dude isn't going to go to great lengths to get Rhino Bullets. If he can get regular ones he will.
and what kind of robber wears body armor to rob your home?!? I'm sorry, but not going to happen. You don't have anything some stupid kid wants so bad he's going to dress up in body armor.
Now, with guns that doesn't work, but I'm willing to bet with bullets, some common criminal dude isn't going to go to great lengths to get Rhino Bullets. If he can get regular ones he will.
and what kind of robber wears body armor to rob your home?!? I'm sorry, but not going to happen. You don't have anything some stupid kid wants so bad he's going to dress up in body armor.
Why do you "need" a high powered car when a KIA works just as well?
It sucks and causes excessive friendly KIAs.
You are projecting your fears onto the wrong target.
You should be afraid of a gov't that wants it's people unarmed.
09-23-2008 | 04:37 PM
#40
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,588
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
the problem is the 2nd amendment does not say anything about "used for hunting" when it talks about our rights.
just because a fully auto AR-15 is silly to use for hunting, does not make it any more legit for someone to own one.
the whole argument about a weapon having to be used for hunting for it to have a legitimate use is absurd.
just because a fully auto AR-15 is silly to use for hunting, does not make it any more legit for someone to own one.
the whole argument about a weapon having to be used for hunting for it to have a legitimate use is absurd.
09-23-2008 | 04:43 PM
#41
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
2 legged varmints...well, that's a different story.
09-23-2008 | 04:47 PM
#42
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 17,962
From: in a glass case of emotion.
Car Info: 345/30/19s
So you take a picture of a group of inbred people who represent and support no one but themselves and try to compare it to years of government intrusion which is backed, by and large, by the general Democratic voting public?
I could post a counter picture of some fools in Portland burning and dragging American flags through the streets, but that is of no real consequence to anyone but their sick, twisted group who thinks thats a productive way to conduct yourself.
I could post a counter picture of some fools in Portland burning and dragging American flags through the streets, but that is of no real consequence to anyone but their sick, twisted group who thinks thats a productive way to conduct yourself.
well this is exactly my point, your original post was trying to make a generalization about an entire political party based on a very small minority of extremist hypocrites who preach tolerance and acceptance, just like what I posted. No point for either of us to go on a google images easter egg hunt, im sure theres plenty more we both could find.
09-23-2008 | 04:55 PM
#43
Friendly Neighborhood Ogre
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,930
From: www.gunatics.com
Car Info: GUNATICS.COM
I think I'd rather cut off a finger than vote of Nobama.
There's a reason the NRA hates him so much...
Sarah Palin now, RAAAAAAAAAAWWR!
I'll take her shooting any day.
There's a reason the NRA hates him so much...
Sarah Palin now, RAAAAAAAAAAWWR!
I'll take her shooting any day.
09-23-2008 | 06:21 PM
#45
AR-15 may have been a bad choice, but I trust you see my point in that once one thing gets baned because of xyz, the sheeple mentality dictates that something else does because it *might* be related somehow. You know, for the sake of being thorough.
well this is exactly my point, your original post was trying to make a generalization about an entire political party based on a very small minority of extremist hypocrites who preach tolerance and acceptance, just like what I posted. No point for either of us to go on a google images easter egg hunt, im sure theres plenty more we both could find.
Thats a majority, not the minority displayed in your picture. Yes, a minority disrupt political conventions, but the majority will vote to ban something simply because they don't see a need for it. I can say the same for the Republicans with gay marriage, etc., but it seems to me the Democrats have a longer running record of taking things out of the public's hands.