SDS Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 It is all about cosmetics. If the gun has a bayonet stud, it is considered an 'assault' weapon. We all know that makes it more dangerous than one without one... If the gun has a flash supressor, it is considered an 'assault' weapon, because they are spooky too. I think another feature that made it an 'assault' weapon is if it had a pistol grip, because tose are scary too. If you are too ignorant to even look into the legislation, then why come on here and automatically flame those in opposition to it? BTW, can anyone tell me what a "Cop Killer" bullet is? I've never seen that brand in Walmart of the local gun store. But I'm sure you retarded Lib's are opposed to them because they sound scary... are you talkin' to me?
UConn James Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 So, they're saying that in order to make Mexico safer, we need to !@#$ over our Constitution. Yeah, that sounds 'bout right. And it won't do a damn thing, there or here, except to take some guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands. And, for those clammoring 'who needs an assault rifle anyway?!?'... the laws are written intentionally broad so that traditional rifles will be included. If you think this is just for AKs, Uzis, you're wrong. They'll start arguing that since .30-06 or .22 rifles can potentially be modified in assault-weapon-like ways, those need to be banned too. There are bad things coming, people. Bad things.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Why do you need a !@#$ing assault weapon?It amazes me how many people have no concept of self defense.
Steely Dan Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 http://wafusa.blogspot.com/2009/02/assault...an-is-back.html He said he's not going to take away your guns moron. The assault weapons ban doesn't mean you have to turn them in it just means you won't be able to buy them anymore legally. Can you understand the difference. It is all about cosmetics. If the gun has a bayonet stud, it is considered an 'assault' weapon. We all know that makes it more dangerous than one without one... If the gun has a flash supressor, it is considered an 'assault' weapon, because they are spooky too. I think another feature that made it an 'assault' weapon is if it had a pistol grip, because tose are scary too. If you are too ignorant to even look into the legislation, then why come on here and automatically flame those in opposition to it? BTW, can anyone tell me what a "Cop Killer" bullet is? I've never seen that brand in Walmart of the local gun store. But I'm sure you retarded Lib's are opposed to them because they sound scary... A cop killer bullet is a bullet capable of penetrating a Kevlar vest. If you're too ignorant to look that up then why come here and automatically flame those in opposition to it? Why do you need a !@#$ing assault weapon? Excellent question. Red Dawn? So, they're saying that in order to make Mexico safer, we need to !@#$ over our Constitution. Yeah, that sounds 'bout right. And it won't do a damn thing, there or here, except to take some guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands. And, for those clammoring 'who needs an assault rifle anyway?!?'... the laws are written intentionally broad so that traditional rifles will be included. If you think this is just for AKs, Uzis, you're wrong. They'll start arguing that since .30-06 or .22 rifles can potentially be modified in assault-weapon-like ways, those need to be banned too. There are bad things coming, people. Bad things. Where does the ability to own armaments stop? Can someone own a bazooka? There is an intelligent line and it doesn't violate gun owners rights it is just common sense. They aren't necessary. Give me one good reason why anyone would need one. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are upset that child porn isn't legal and it's an affront to the right of free speech. It amazes me how many people have no concept of self defense. Uh-huh. Why do you need an AK-47 for defense instead of a handgun?
Steely Dan Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I want a gun like the one from the movie Tron
Alaska Darin Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 To all of the dickheads who "support" this proposal: YOU HAVE ZERO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon". The original "Assault Weapons Ban" was likely the first time in American history that something was "banned" for having a safety feature. Apparently "Barrel Shrouds", "Bayonet Lugs", "Pistol Grips", and "Flash Suppressors" make semi-automatic weapons more dangerous than the versions that won't be banned. Ooh. Scary. Care to guess what the industry did? They worked around it. All the ban did was make the existing guns more profitable and the new ones slightly different in the looks department. Nice work, sheeple. There is virtually no functioning difference between an Ak-47 and a Winchester .308 semi-automatic hunting rifle. Check that. A person who owns a Winchester .308 hunting rifle is far more likely to hit the target they are shooting at because their gun is significantly more accurate. "Assault weapons" account for less than 1% of all weapons in America (U.S Department of Justice Survey) They are used in less than 2% of all crimes. Since the original ban sun-setted, there has been no distinguishable increase in crime. You go ahead and let me know the next time one of you is confronted by a legally owned semi-automatic assault weapon. You know, since they're obviously so dangerous. And for those of you who actually believe in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, weapons like the AR-15 would be EXACTLY the kind that the Founding Fathers would expect an American to own. But I'd like to thank the new Administration for all but ensuring that their time in charge is going to be short because they're obviously too stupid to remember 1994 and 2000, when their gun stances cost them dearly.
The Dean Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Assault weapons, morons. Do you think it is OK for me to have my own nuke, too?
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Assault weapons, morons. Do you think it is OK for me to have my own nuke, too? There's a reasonable, well thought out counter point.
The Dean Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 There's a reasonable, well thought out counter point. Yes, it is, actually. Thank you for not making me explain the obvious.
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Yes, it is, actually. Thank you for not making me explain the obvious. Obviously retarded, but you won't let that stop you if history is any gauge.
Steely Dan Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 To all of the dickheads who "support" this proposal: YOU HAVE ZERO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon". The original "Assault Weapons Ban" was likely the first time in American history that something was "banned" for having a safety feature. Apparently "Barrel Shrouds", "Bayonet Lugs", "Pistol Grips", and "Flash Suppressors" make semi-automatic weapons more dangerous than the versions that won't be banned. Ooh. Scary. Care to guess what the industry did? They worked around it. All the ban did was make the existing guns more profitable and the new ones slightly different in the looks department. Nice work, sheeple. There is virtually no functioning difference between an Ak-47 and a Winchester .308 semi-automatic hunting rifle. Check that. A person who owns a Winchester .308 hunting rifle is far more likely to hit the target they are shooting at because their gun is significantly more accurate. "Assault weapons" account for less than 1% of all weapons in America (U.S Department of Justice Survey) They are used in less than 2% of all crimes. Since the original ban sun-setted, there has been no distinguishable increase in crime. You go ahead and let me know the next time one of you is confronted by a legally owned semi-automatic assault weapon. You know, since they're obviously so dangerous. And for those of you who actually believe in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, weapons like the AR-15 would be EXACTLY the kind that the Founding Fathers would expect an American to own. But I'd like to thank the new Administration for all but ensuring that their time in charge is going to be short because they're obviously too stupid to remember 1994 and 2000, when their gun stances cost them dearly. Which founding father did you talk to? There is virtually no functioning difference between an Ak-47 and a Winchester .308 semi-automatic hunting rifle. Thanks for pointing that out. They should be illegal then too. Just tell me why they are necessary for the average Americans to own?
VABills Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Which founding father did you talk to? Thanks for pointing that out. They should be illegal then too. Just tell me why they are necessary for the average Americans to own? hard to shoot a moose from 500 yard swith a bb gun
The Dean Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Obviously retarded, but you won't let that stop you if history is any gauge. How about a surface-to-air missile? Not a nuclear weapon, just some thing passive, and hand held...a Stinger, for instance. That should be legal for me to have, right?
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 How about a surface-to-air missile? Not a nuclear weapon, just some thing passive, and hand held...a Stinger, for instance. That should be legal for me to have, right? The best part is you think you're helping your point.
Jon in Pasadena Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Thanks for pointing that out. They should be illegal then too. If you had the slightest clue how utterly ignorant this statement is, you'd not only change to a new handle, you'd also change your IP. Better yet, your ISP.
Chump Change Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 A cop killer bullet is a bullet capable of penetrating a Kevlar vest. If you're too ignorant to look that up then why come here and automatically flame those in opposition to it?Where does the ability to own armaments stop? Can someone own a bazooka? There is an intelligent line and it doesn't violate gun owners rights it is just common sense. They aren't necessary. Give me one good reason why anyone would need one. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are upset that child porn isn't legal and it's an affront to the right of free speech. Uh-huh. Why do you need an AK-47 for defense instead of a handgun? I know what the Libtards have coined a 'cop killer'. But 99% of those posting here in opposition have no clue. Thanks for playing. As far as owning a bazooka, that argument is as ridiculous as my car argument (posted to prove a point). No one is advocating owning an exploding projectile. Same with Holders fear mongering explanation corolating hand grenades to 'assault' weapons. While he wasn't directly quoted in the article as saying that, it was inferred.
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Which founding father did you talk to? I don't have to talk to the people who were willing to pick up their own rifles and fight for their freedom. Losers like you would still be worshiping the Queen Mother and pretending people can actually be born with royal blood. Thanks for pointing that out. They should be illegal then too. And there you have it, a liberal just admitted that hunting rifles should also be illegal. Welcome to the next step in the process. Just tell me why they are necessary for the average Americans to own? How about you tell me why they shouldn't, since my right is Constitutionally protected? I don't feel the need to argue the legality further.
Bad Lieutenant Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Somewhere Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave over the terrible news that it may become more difficult for pock-marked, pot-bellied, middle aged, angry white men in bad Wrangler jeans to spend their weekends shooting pumpkins with AK-47's equipped with the full array of accoutrements that they've become accustomed to. What is this country coming to?
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Somewhere Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave over the terrible news that it may become more difficult for pock-marked, pot-bellied, middle aged, angry white men in bad Wrangler jeans to spend their weekends shooting pumpkins with AK-47's equipped with the full array of accoutrements that they've become accustomed to. What is this country coming to? Somehow I doubt Thomas "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Patriotism are the virtues of the vicious." would be thinking of the issue as a problem with the citizenry. "I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." - Thomas Jefferson "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherentin the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson
Recommended Posts