swede316 Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 People should be able to own hunting rifles, shotguns, and small clip pistols, but there is no need for offensive assault weapons. Ah...now the question becomes, who are you to decide what I should and shouldn't be able to own.
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 It's a strange alliance between the people who say they need guns in case the government tries to restrict our rights, and the politicians who are most likely to restrict our rights. It's the conservatives in government who want to restrict rights and have more government oversight of our lives, whether it be the current Patriot Act, restricting free speech on the tv and radio, restricting abortion rights, or banning marriage to some. I'll say again that I think there is a reasonable compromise that can be made. People should be able to own hunting rifles, shotguns, and small clip pistols, but there is no need for offensive assault weapons. I would leave it to the weapon experts from both sides of the debate to define what should be catagorized as an assault weapon whose primary purpose is to inflict casualties. The extremists from both sides should not be allowed to drive the legislation. 30766[/snapback] Liberals don't have weapons experts on their side. They have stupidity and fear. Hence the reasons they "banned" semi-automatic guns that had features like "bayonet lug, pistol grip, barrel shroud, etc" that are in IDENTICAL calibers as other hunting rifles you say you are for. Those on the other side have that crazy little thing called the Constitution. The Patriot Act passed the Senate by a vote of 99-1. It passed the House 346-66. Looks to me like both parties were for it in an overwhelming manner. Facts suck. Wanna see liberals who don't like free speech? Watch This Actual Documentary John Kerry is against gay marriage. Well, he was the last time he was interviewed. Liberals think it's OK to kill a 3rd trimester baby in the birth canal. Conservatives think it's OK to kill violent criminals. How odd. Once again, you speak in nothing more than soundbytes - showing your ignorance.
stuckincincy Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 If I'm not mistaken, you CAN walk down the street with a gun in many states. And while guns on planes would obviously have some drawbacks, there wouldn't have been any 9-11 attacks if half the passengers had been packing heat. 29665[/snapback] You can openly carry a weapon in Ohio. But you will likely be charged with inducing panic or some such. When I was a lad in the '50's, the whole neighborhood looked like an armed camp. Very authentic-looking toys in many cases. They would call out the SWAT teams today. One could mail-order firearms, war-surplus bazookas and the like. Ammo was widely sold. We boys invariably carried a jacknife to school. Yet - few if any problems. It's not the availability of weaponry - it is a change in society. Ye
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 It's not the availability of weaponry - it is a change in society. 30860[/snapback] That can't possibly be true. Look at all the criminal activity in Switzerland involving automatic weapons (which are legal). Oh, there isn't any.
stuckincincy Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 That can't possibly be true. Look at all the criminal activity in Switzerland involving automatic weapons (which are legal). Oh, there isn't any. 30873[/snapback] I just know I am going to be the Bane of Society when I buy me a 30-shot banana for my AR-7. I tell people I own an AR-7 and watch them jump to conclusions...
PastaJoe Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Once again, you speak in nothing more than soundbytes - showing your ignorance. Ditto to you. Democrats want to review the Patriot Act and keep the sunset clause so it can be reviewed, Republicans want to make it permanent as is. Kerry is against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and thinks it's a states-right issue, Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban it. Conservatives want to prevent abortion even if the life of the mother is endangered, and oppose funding stem-cell research on embryos that will otherwise be thrown away. Back to the topic, so I am left to conclude that you and others are not willing to work towards a compromise on guns as I am, and once again you demonstrate why this country is so divided, because so many are stuck in their extremist positions.
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Ditto to you. Democrats want to review the Patriot Act and keep the sunset clause so it can be reviewed, Republicans want to make it permanent as is. Kerry is against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and thinks it's a states-right issue, Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban it. Conservatives want to prevent abortion even if the life of the mother is endangered, and oppose funding stem-cell research on embryos that will otherwise be thrown away. Back to the topic, so I am left to conclude that you and others are not willing to work towards a compromise on guns as I am, and once again you demonstrate why this country is so divided, because so many are stuck in their extremist positions. 30898[/snapback] So now facts are soundbytes? Your credibility is so very high. There is no reason to compromise with the uninformed. You can label it as extremism if you want. I don't see a big difference between the First and Second Amendments. I like them both and understand why the exist. Regardless of the argument from the left "assault weapons" are EXACTLY the type of arms the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the thing. You're simply painting with the same ridiculous broad brush that the left has used for years. Keep wondering why those who like freedom and believe the Constitution was written for a reason will never agree with you. The last time I checked there were a few members from both parties sponsoring legislation to repeal some of the clauses in the Patriot Act, not just Democrats. Don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your bull stevestojan rhetoric. Of course they wanted to keep the "assault weapons" ban in place. It keeps lemmings like you and the 200 soccer moms at the "million 'tard march" in the fold for another election cycle. Pandering to idiots is the secret to the Democratic Party's "success."
PastaJoe Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 The last time I checked there were a few members from both parties sponsoring legislation to repeal some of the clauses in the Patriot Act, not just Democrats. But a majority of Democrats support the changes, while a majority of Republicans and Bush don't support them, so unless there's a change in leadership the changes won't pass. OK, I tried to be reasonable and find a common ground for compromise, but you are among the extremists who want everything your way without regard for others viewpoints. Keep hugging your guns and listening for the helicopters at night.
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 But a majority of Democrats support the changes, while a majority of Republicans and Bush don't support them, so unless there's a change in leadership the changes won't pass. OK, I tried to be reasonable and find a common ground for compromise, but you are among the extremists who want everything your way without regard for others viewpoints. Keep hugging your guns and listening for the helicopters at night. 31216[/snapback] Typical bluster with nothing factual to back it up. What a surprise. There is no compromise where the Constitution of the United States is concerned. Keep telling yourself I'm the one afraid of the boogeyman when you're the one who wants to outlaw something.
JoeFerguson Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Alaska Darin, I have no problem with your passion for guns. Your reasoning makes sense on why the recent ban has been lifted. I am just wondering, what exactly do you use your guns for? And what kind of guns do you own? I personally have no use for a gun. While I agree with you that too much money is wasted trying to legistlate against certain types of guns, I don't understand why anyone would actually need a gun unless they were a hunter, criminal, police officer, or person who carries lots of cash on them.
swede316 Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 What about target shooter, home defense, sporting clays?
JoeFerguson Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 What about target shooter, home defense, sporting clays? 31406[/snapback] Couldn't you just use a beebe gun for target shooting? I don't understand home defense unless you live in a really bad neighborhood.
swede316 Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Sure... keep your head in the sand...home invasion is on the rise...and not just in bad neighborhoods. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information...tem.asp?ID=1772
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Alaska Darin, I have no problem with your passion for guns. Your reasoning makes sense on why the recent ban has been lifted. I am just wondering, what exactly do you use your guns for? And what kind of guns do you own? I personally have no use for a gun. While I agree with you that too much money is wasted trying to legistlate against certain types of guns, I don't understand why anyone would actually need a gun unless they were a hunter, criminal, police officer, or person who carries lots of cash on them. 31386[/snapback] I own a variety of guns for various purposes. Hunting, sporting, and home defense. Different types of hunting require different calibers/weapon types. Guns have been a part of my life since I was very young. There are between 750,000 and 3,000,000 crimes prevented annually by private citizens. The upper end of that statistic says you have a 1 in 100 chance of needing a gun every year. Currently the ratio of police officers to citizens in in the 1800-1 range. 911 is the government's version of "dial a prayer." I have pulled my concealed weapon twice in my life. Never had to fire it. Showing it was enough to make the perp decide to go after someone else. Lucky for him and me, I'd say. The problem with saying you don't need a gun is that time when you actually do. I understand the rationale and gun ownership isn't for everyone. That doesn't change the actual right. Everytime I have an "in person" conversation with anti-gunners, I ask them to put a sign in their front yard. The sign should read "Attention criminals, this house has no guns."
Paco Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 I have pulled my concealed weapon twice in my life. Crap, I pull my concealed weapon twice every day. Usually while looking at Bea Arthur photos. Oh...you mean concealed weapon as in a GUN? Ummmm. Nevermind.
swede316 Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Usually while looking at Bea Arthur photos. Dude...Seek Help!
Paco Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Dude...Seek Help! 31604[/snapback] Don't be bustin' on my beotch, man.
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Crap, I pull my concealed weapon twice every day. Usually while looking at Bea Arthur photos. Oh...you mean concealed weapon as in a GUN? Ummmm. Nevermind. 31593[/snapback] That's funny as stevestojan Ed. When did you get an alias?
Paco Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 That's funny as stevestojan Ed. When did you get an alias? 31654[/snapback] In Ed's dreams.
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 In Ed's dreams. 31676[/snapback] I would be careful, I wouldn't want to be in Ed's dreams.
Recommended Posts