Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I love it when people argue using soundbites. I also enjoyed this line:Yup, don't need to read it. Even though he was wrong on what the National Firearms Act said, there is still no need to read it. He has already made up his mind on what it says, so that is what really counts here. 85898[/snapback] Nothing better than a decision based on emotion coupled with ignorance. Welcome to why Rome fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Does this mean I can keep my grenade launcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I love it when people argue using soundbites. I also enjoyed this line:Yup, don't need to read it. Even though he was wrong on what the National Firearms Act said, there is still no need to read it. He has already made up his mind on what it says, so that is what really counts here. 85898[/snapback] My POINT was about the unnecessary need for automatic weapons in civilian homes, not about ANYTHING ELSE. THAT is why I don't need to read it! There is NOTHING in that document that could possibly explain why people need to own automatic weapons. If there IS, THEN flame me. But if there is not, I don't need to read it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 My POINT was about the unnecessary need for automatic weapons in civilian homes, not about ANYTHING ELSE. THAT is why I don't need to read it! There is NOTHING in that document that could possibly explain why people need to own automatic weapons. If there IS, THEN flame me. But if there is not, I don't need to read it... 86025[/snapback] Assault weapons aren't automatic and the revoked ban didn't make it legal for anyone to own an automatic weapon who didn't have one before. Try making the argument that they are easily convertible. I dare you. Ignorance + fear mongering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 My POINT was about the unnecessary need for automatic weapons in civilian homes, not about ANYTHING ELSE. THAT is why I don't need to read it! There is NOTHING in that document that could possibly explain why people need to own automatic weapons. If there IS, THEN flame me. But if there is not, I don't need to read it... 86025[/snapback] You need to read it, because your conclusions on what it said were wrong re: fully auto weapons were banned. But why inform yourself. Forming opinions based on emotions are much more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The same philosophy can be applied to alcohol. How many people die or are injured as a result of drunk driving? How many families are torn apart due to alcoholism? There is no NEED for alcoholic beverages. Forget all of the people who drink alcohol responsibly. We need to focus on the few that are irresponsible in order to protect society. Ban alcohol. 85884[/snapback] OK THEN, you want to go THAT route, then here we go: Either ban everything, or make everything legal. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, alcohol, automatic weapons, explosives, high end sports cars... By your logic, there is either all or none... What kind of a government is THAT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 You need to read it, because your conclusions on what it said were wrong re: fully auto weapons were banned. But why inform yourself. Forming opinions based on emotions are much more effective. 86032[/snapback] OK then, I will read it in its entirety. I can admit when I am wrong, unlike some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 OK THEN, you want to go THAT route, then here we go: Either ban everything, or make everything legal. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, alcohol, automatic weapons, explosives, high end sports cars... By your logic, there is either all or none... What kind of a government is THAT??? 86035[/snapback] Damn, you get testy when your arguments break down. I pointed out an argument using the EXACT SAME LOGIC you used to form your argument. Nice to see you finally realize that it is a baseless and irrational way to look at things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 OK THEN, you want to go THAT route, then here we go: Either ban everything, or make everything legal. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, alcohol, automatic weapons, explosives, high end sports cars... By your logic, there is either all or none... What kind of a government is THAT??? 86035[/snapback] Cool. Sounds good to me. The problem is in the definitions. My semi-auto Remington 7400 30.06 deer rifle was considered an "assault weapon" by the original sets of definitions presented to the legislators. It's not a question of all or nothing. It's camel's nose under the tent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Damn, you get testy when your arguments break down. I pointed out an argument using the EXACT SAME LOGIC you used to form your argument. Nice to see you finally realize that it is a baseless and irrational way to look at things. 86044[/snapback] Well then, we have a consensus at last! However, I will not change my opinion that owning an automatic weapon makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Cool. Sounds good to me. The problem is in the definitions. My semi-auto Remington 7400 30.06 deer rifle was considered an "assault weapon" by the original sets of definitions presented to the legislators. It's not a question of all or nothing. It's camel's nose under the tent. 86046[/snapback] You see, THAT is ludicrous!!! To me, those kinds of baseless decisions do NOT make sense. To me, if the weapon is not defined correctly, then this inane assault weapons ban legislation is TP. I'm glad to see that it was not renewed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 There is no need to read it; fully automatic weapons banned, cut and dry. I was merely making a point that eventually you have to logically look at things, and wonder why ANYONE needs (for example) an AK-47? I don't hunt animals with an AK-47; it's just plain silly. I don't need an AK-47 to protect my family; that too is just plain silly. I guess you need to realize there are 2 versions of the AK-47...a legal SEMI-Auto and the illegal FULLY Auto version. You can buy the semi but not the full...If you don't know the difference go to an NRA safety class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 So if they'd just graduated and were headed off for duty, why weren't they armed? Funny...when I graduated boot camp..they didn't send me home with an M-16. Hell I have 5 days left in the military and they haven't sent me home armed yet after 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts