Obama Still Looking to Kill the FFDO Program?
03-25-2009 | 04:51 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: 88 Gunner
Actually, an AK-47 will allow one to defend himself from a large amount of people in a very short period of time. Or a few people at close range if he is a bad shot. Or a horde of zombies if he is a good shot and can reload on the run.
One of the good things about an AK or tricked-out Bushmaster is the impression it gives an intruder. Brandish one at the top of the stairs and watch the badguys scatter without firing a shot. But for this purpose the sound of a shotgun being racked in the dark is the best recipe for putting a wet spot on a burgler's crotch.
A gun is just a tool, like a hammer, or a chainsaw, or an alligator.
- Homer Simpson
One of the good things about an AK or tricked-out Bushmaster is the impression it gives an intruder. Brandish one at the top of the stairs and watch the badguys scatter without firing a shot. But for this purpose the sound of a shotgun being racked in the dark is the best recipe for putting a wet spot on a burgler's crotch.
A gun is just a tool, like a hammer, or a chainsaw, or an alligator.
- Homer Simpson
03-25-2009 | 05:16 AM
#62
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Likes: 0
I have NO problem with people owning guns..............responsibly. The 2nd amendment says:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
The 2nd amendment has caused more controversy due to it's "interpretations", just like the right to "free speech" includes (through interpretation of the Supreme Court) being able to burn the American flag. How that is "speech" is beyond me, because if I call someone an idiot, they can sue me for "mentally disparaging them" and then it's not "free speech" any more......it's an insulting, harming, damaging, remark. Watch TV and any time a public figure uses their right to "free speech" and say something controversial, they are tarred and feathered. Go figure. I guess most of these "gun nuts" NEED 60 guns in their arsenal for protection. I'm surprised most of them leave their homes during the day for fear someone is going to take them out. Yep, those guns packed away in a safe sure will protect them on the street, won't they? Maybe they need a tank to live in too, that way they'll be even more protected than a lousy AK-47...............
BTW, we've already had a few "whacko's" have their guns taken away from them. Scary, isn't it?
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
The 2nd amendment has caused more controversy due to it's "interpretations", just like the right to "free speech" includes (through interpretation of the Supreme Court) being able to burn the American flag. How that is "speech" is beyond me, because if I call someone an idiot, they can sue me for "mentally disparaging them" and then it's not "free speech" any more......it's an insulting, harming, damaging, remark. Watch TV and any time a public figure uses their right to "free speech" and say something controversial, they are tarred and feathered. Go figure. I guess most of these "gun nuts" NEED 60 guns in their arsenal for protection. I'm surprised most of them leave their homes during the day for fear someone is going to take them out. Yep, those guns packed away in a safe sure will protect them on the street, won't they? Maybe they need a tank to live in too, that way they'll be even more protected than a lousy AK-47...............
BTW, we've already had a few "whacko's" have their guns taken away from them. Scary, isn't it?
03-25-2009 | 05:28 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Well, I will confirm first hand that there might be a movement, but it hasn't halted anything. Yesterday I received the confirmation that I have been invited out to attend training.
03-25-2009 | 05:36 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
From: USAF
Ok...I will try again. I dont understand why someone needs a AK-47 type weapon. However, if you are able to obtain it legally and use it responsibly, I really dont have an issue with that. However, if that weapon EVER (unless you legally sell it) gets in the hands of a criminal and gets used to kill a bunch of people then I (and I think the law should as well) hold YOU personally responsible for that crime.
The main problem I have with these type of weapons is the amount of destruction they can bring in a very short period of time.
The main problem I have with these type of weapons is the amount of destruction they can bring in a very short period of time.
"Assault weapons" - account for < 1% of all gun crimes
so your argument doesn't hold much salt.
03-25-2009 | 05:41 AM
#65
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 0
From: The Beginnings
[quote=TheDashRocks;584610]
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - DOI
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.
Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.
Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.
03-25-2009 | 07:44 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
[quote=deltabound;584642]
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - DOI
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.
Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.
I for one am thankful that guys like you exercise your "2nd amendment rights." Not only do you protect us from foreign vermin who seek to infest this country, but you also keep the federal government in line! Also, a nice side benefit to all of this is that a huge stockpile of guns really does make you and your family safer. Every skilled and motivated criminal knows that owning guns makes you bullet-proof, and they would never bother to figure out your schedule and try to rip you off when you're not around. (SARCASM!)
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - DOI
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.
Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.
I for one am thankful that guys like you exercise your "2nd amendment rights." Not only do you protect us from foreign vermin who seek to infest this country, but you also keep the federal government in line! Also, a nice side benefit to all of this is that a huge stockpile of guns really does make you and your family safer. Every skilled and motivated criminal knows that owning guns makes you bullet-proof, and they would never bother to figure out your schedule and try to rip you off when you're not around. (SARCASM!)
Last edited by Droog; 03-25-2009 at 10:29 AM.
03-25-2009 | 07:54 AM
#67
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Likes: 0
Reading all this "protect me and my family" stuff reminded me of one of the SSGT's that used to work with me in the USAF. He had a license plate that said, "this vehicle is protected by a Colt 45". I asked him if I could see it one day and his reply? "Sucker got stolen!" 
03-25-2009 | 08:34 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
[quote=deltabound;584642]
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - DOI
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.
Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.
Dude,
The Constitution is way too complicated for you to tie any of it so simplisticly to a clause from the Declaration of Independence, then prertend to know what the Founders wanted. For your argument to make any sense, you would have to totally ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment. You know, the part that says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,...." Who is it that you think regulated the militia? The State Governments.
My point is that it is too complicated. Even the fact that the capatilized "State" means something. Ill be back in a bit for more discussion, because this is fun.
New K Now
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - DOI
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.
Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.
The Constitution is way too complicated for you to tie any of it so simplisticly to a clause from the Declaration of Independence, then prertend to know what the Founders wanted. For your argument to make any sense, you would have to totally ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment. You know, the part that says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,...." Who is it that you think regulated the militia? The State Governments.
My point is that it is too complicated. Even the fact that the capatilized "State" means something. Ill be back in a bit for more discussion, because this is fun.
New K Now
03-25-2009 | 08:35 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
[quote=TheDashRocks;584610]
It is an irrational phobia of weapons. What Deltabound quoted explains it all. If some members here feel the need to wipe their collective bums with the writings of our founding fathers it's is their business. That's the great thing about America isn't it?
Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
03-25-2009 | 08:53 AM
#70
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: 717
If Obama continues,
it WAS the great thing about America. So, if you hate guns and my right to own them in any form, that is fine. But do not infringe on my right to do so as I will not infringe or attempt to jam my moral/ethic code on you. Ask an Aussie how it was when the government went door to door to take guns away. Ask about the increase in crime as criminals could be pretty sure that they had free access to homes with no fear of 9mm retribution from a startled owner. Ask that Aussie how he felt clutching a knife or axe, as some of the posters here claim are suitable replacements, when an armed intruder, or even unarmed intruder, made his way in. Ask him how it felt to have to fight hand to hand to stop the assault on his home and family. Criminals will always have access to guns. Period. Why take away a deterrent? Why make it easier for the government to continue the erosion of rights? You may laugh and cry out about conspiracy theories and how it will never happen in the good old USA.... But the Aussies thought the same thing. As did the Brits. And look at how they are fighting an uphill battle to regain their swiftly lost rights.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
