|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 17, 2009 17:33:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyedug on Mar 17, 2009 18:43:25 GMT -6
Good, there is no place for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 17, 2009 20:15:43 GMT -6
It's predominantly the cops who are pushing for them to be banned, because they are sick of getting wasted by them. Frankly I don't give a shit who owns what kind of weapon, but I do support draconian penalties for their intentional abuse.
I don't know what kind of a pussy needs an assault weapon, though. Tough-guy wannabes. Oh look, you put 30 bullets in a buck. Wow. Big stud. Real impressed. Yawn.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that Iowafreak1 links exclusively to right-wing sites? GIGO.
|
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 17, 2009 21:24:47 GMT -6
It's predominantly the cops who are pushing for them to be banned, because they are sick of getting wasted by them. Frankly I don't give a shit who owns what kind of weapon, but I do support draconian penalties for their intentional abuse. I don't know what kind of a pussy needs an assault weapon, though. Tough-guy wannabes. Oh look, you put 30 bullets in a buck. Wow. Big stud. Real impressed. Yawn. BTW, has anyone else noticed that Iowafreak1 links exclusively to right-wing sites? GIGO. Thunder we both know why they are there, why they must be legal. We also know why using them deserves draconian punishment. We also know that making them illegal won't prevent them from getting into the wrong hands. At the same time, (with registering should hold a promise that they will never be banned, or taken away from lawful citizens- constitutionally- even though it would be redundant) All nations that have banned guns have followed the bluprint, it starts with registration (which I'm not agianst), and exds with banning (to which I am). They follow the Nazi blueprint. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 17, 2009 23:57:25 GMT -6
It's predominantly the cops who are pushing for them to be banned, because they are sick of getting wasted by them. Frankly I don't give a shit who owns what kind of weapon, but I do support draconian penalties for their intentional abuse. I don't know what kind of a pussy needs an assault weapon, though. Tough-guy wannabes. Oh look, you put 30 bullets in a buck. Wow. Big stud. Real impressed. Yawn. BTW, has anyone else noticed that Iowafreak1 links exclusively to right-wing sites? GIGO. Thunder we both know why they are there, why they must be legal. We also know why using them deserves draconian punishment. We also know that making them illegal won't prevent them from getting into the wrong hands. At the same time, (with registering should hold a promise that they will never be banned, or taken away from lawful citizens- constitutionally- even though it would be redundant) All nations that have banned guns have followed the bluprint, it starts with registration (which I'm not agianst), and exds with banning (to which I am). They follow the Nazi blueprint. Good job, Stock. www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.htmlT his paper gives a very factual and historical perspective surrounding the 2nd amendment. It's very interesting and points out the fallacy of the "militia only" argument among other things. Give it a read. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 18, 2009 0:34:23 GMT -6
Told you guys it was coming... Now I wonder what Fox will tell you to write when the mandatory gay marriage act is introduced. Will Iowafan still be a chubby chaser?  |
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Mar 18, 2009 7:29:04 GMT -6
People do not need AK 47's. Seriously.
I'm ok with people having a handgun to protect their family in the unlikely event that it is needed. But assault weapons are meant to kill people, and lots of people at that. They have no place in a civilized society.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101 on Mar 18, 2009 7:44:51 GMT -6
Someone who feels this is a problem, please help me understand.
For what purpose would any law abiding citizen need an assault weapon? Seriously.....help me understand your views.
|
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 18, 2009 8:01:58 GMT -6
Someone who feels Smurf is a problem, please help me understand. For what purpose would any law abiding citizen need an assault weapon? Seriously.....help me understand your views. To kill those who try to take them away from you, assassination, eventual invasion, and to ensure that the government understands that their will be military loses due to tyranny (UN rule, bankster rule, Nazi rule, etc). |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 18, 2009 9:38:45 GMT -6
Someone who feels Smurf is a problem, please help me understand. For what purpose would any law abiding citizen need an assault weapon? Seriously.....help me understand your views. To kill those who try to take them away from you, assassination, eventual invasion, and to ensure that the government understands that their will be military loses due to tyranny (UN rule, bankster rule, Nazi rule, etc). So, in case we get invaded by a foreign power and our military can't protect us......you and I need assault weapons. Or, if we finally have enough of our government and decide to have a Marxist uprising, we citizens need assault weapons to overthrow the government. I'll stick with saying nobody needs or should have a weapon that pulls off 50 rounds in 5 seconds other than a U.S. soldier who is enlisted. The idea that my next door neighbor needs to have the right to an AK-47 is absurd and was not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Before IAfan jumps down my throat about being a pussy liberal, I own a gun mofo.....wanna see it? |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 18, 2009 10:18:37 GMT -6
To kill those who try to take them away from you, assassination, eventual invasion, and to ensure that the government understands that their will be military loses due to tyranny (UN rule, bankster rule, Nazi rule, etc). So, in case we get invaded by a foreign power and our military can't protect us......you and I need assault weapons. Or, if we finally have enough of our government and decide to have a Marxist uprising, we citizens need assault weapons to overthrow the government. I'll stick with saying nobody needs or should have a weapon that pulls off 50 rounds in 5 seconds other than a U.S. soldier who is enlisted. The idea that my next door neighbor needs to have the right to an AK-47 is absurd and was not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Before IAfan jumps down my throat about being a pussy liberal, I own a gun mofo.....wanna see it? Come on LP don't act like you have never seen Red Dawn! That shit is real! |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 18, 2009 10:46:58 GMT -6
So, in case we get invaded by a foreign power and our military can't protect us......you and I need assault weapons. Or, if we finally have enough of our government and decide to have a Marxist uprising, we citizens need assault weapons to overthrow the government. I'll stick with saying nobody needs or should have a weapon that pulls off 50 rounds in 5 seconds other than a U.S. soldier who is enlisted. The idea that my next door neighbor needs to have the right to an AK-47 is absurd and was not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Before IAfan jumps down my throat about being a pussy liberal, I own a gun mofo.....wanna see it? Come on LP don't act like you have never seen Red Dawn! That shit is real! You beat me to it. WOLVERINES!!! OK, so if assault weapons are illegal, the argument goes, the criminals will still be able to procure them. Well, if that's true, then so will non-criminals (excusing for the moment the de facto criminal status of acquiring an illegal weapon). If you don't use them to commit a crime and don't show them off to your friends, who will ever know. On the other hand, if they are illegal, and they are primarily used by criminals, mostly against each other and the cops in drug related gang wars, then the possession of such just gives the policia a reason the blow these criminal motherfuckers away with impunity. For those of you who think you're really gonna take on the government or the local SWAT team for that matter with your assault rifle, turn off the fucking Glenn Beck and wake up to reality. You'll last about ten seconds. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 18, 2009 10:51:14 GMT -6
Laugh all you wish, but the purpose of the right is to thwart tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 18, 2009 12:49:47 GMT -6
LP = Rob Lowe
Hoffa = C. Thomas Howell
Thunder = Patrick Swayze
I get to hump Jennifer Gray
|
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Mar 18, 2009 12:55:39 GMT -6
People do not need AK 47's. Seriously. I'm ok with people having a handgun to protect their family in the unlikely event that it is needed. But assault weapons are meant to kill people, and lots of people at that. They have no place in a civilized society. Agreed. I'm glad to see you've bent a little bit on "all guns are equal", though. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 18, 2009 13:19:50 GMT -6
Laugh all you wish, but the purpose of the right is to thwart tyranny. Then you better start advocating for the private right to procure nukes. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 18, 2009 13:36:41 GMT -6
Laugh all you wish, but the purpose of the right is to thwart tyranny. No. Elections like the one last November are what thwarts tyranny. To kill those who try to take them away from you, assassination, eventual invasion, and to ensure that the government understands that their will be military loses due to tyranny (UN rule, bankster rule, Nazi rule, etc). Invasions are only overcome by: - viruses (common cold or by humans joining forces with sentient machines to battle power hungry viruses & computer viruses that can bypass their overwhelming technology) - Killing the invading army's overlord and/or mothership - Befriending a sympathetic member of the invading species with specific and needed knowledge on how to overcome the invasion All else is futile. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 19, 2009 21:49:08 GMT -6
I have had this argument with bluz' some time ago and I will reiterate that I don't see any need for guns. I can live with rifles for hunting. Maybe handguns for self defense. Maybe. That is it.
That being said if you want to completely take away something that the conservative right holds firmly to the vest then we should take something away from the left that they value closely. Say, abortion. I would say that calls it pretty equal. Do that then lets see all the whiny bitches complain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Mar 19, 2009 23:01:28 GMT -6
I have had this argument with bluz' some time ago and I will reiterate that I don't see any need for guns. I can live with rifles for hunting. Maybe handguns for self defense. Maybe. That is it. That being said if you want to completely take away something that the conservative right holds firmly to the vest then we should take something away from the left that they value closely. Say, abortion. I would say that calls it pretty equal. Do that then lets see all the whiny bitches complain. As an independent, that last paragraph makes me cringe. It's not "us verses them". I've never understood why one has to submit completely to one side or the other. I'm all over the board. It's about what is best for progression, and the country being as close to firing on all cylinders as possible. Matta, you were probably being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it seems this type of dialogue happens all too much. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 20, 2009 1:06:05 GMT -6
[For those of you who think you're really gonna take on the government or the local SWAT team for that matter with your assault rifle, turn off the fucking Glenn Beck and wake up to reality. You'll last about ten seconds. Not individually, but the public would mop up the SWAT team due to overwelming numbers. And while the military would kill millions they would eventually be stopped (assuming the public had the will to do so). This is exactly what The Framers had in mind. I'm sure we both can provide examples of a suffiently armed public defending itself from it's government. There aren't any examples of an unarmed public defending itself from it's government. Here's an interesting bit from about weapons being seized during Katrina. You would think that when the government can't help it's citizens, they should be able to help/protect themselves. Note: Kudos to The Fuzz for taking out that heavily armed, able bodied citizen in the first interview. Unbelievable. Note #2: Right wing website content. |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 20, 2009 7:53:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 20, 2009 15:12:56 GMT -6
I have had this argument with bluz' some time ago and I will reiterate that I don't see any need for guns. I can live with rifles for hunting. Maybe handguns for self defense. Maybe. That is it. That being said if you want to completely take away something that the conservative right holds firmly to the vest then we should take something away from the left that they value closely. Say, abortion. I would say that calls it pretty equal. Do that then lets see all the whiny bitches complain. As an independent, that last paragraph makes me cringe. It's not "us verses them". I've never understood why one has to submit completely to one side or the other. I'm all over the board. It's about what is best for progression, and the country being as close to firing on all cylinders as possible. Matta, you were probably being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it seems this type of dialogue happens all too much. You probably know I am all over the board too on a lot of the issues. Maybe a little tongue in cheek. But not much. And certainly not about doing away with abortion. 100% against it accept in case of the mothers health or the baby if for sure severely deformed/retarded, etc. Think about it. Every time the party in power took something away from the other party they have to lose something equally important to them. You wouldn't hear anymore bitching and moaning from the parties about this or that. Maybe everybody could just be happy with the status quo for a change instead of fighting over some issues that are so divisive to the country. Maybe we could elect a president on what he can actually do for the country instead of what he will take away from the other party. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Mar 20, 2009 15:26:54 GMT -6
As an independent, that last paragraph makes me cringe. It's not "us verses them". I've never understood why one has to submit completely to one side or the other. I'm all over the board. It's about what is best for progression, and the country being as close to firing on all cylinders as possible. Matta, you were probably being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it seems this type of dialogue happens all too much. You probably know I am all over the board too on a lot of the issues. Maybe a little tongue in cheek. But not much. And certainly not about doing away with abortion. 100% against it accept in case of the mothers health or the baby if for sure severely deformed/retarded, etc. Think about it. Every time the party in power took something away from the other party they have to lose something equally important to them. You wouldn't hear anymore bitching and moaning from the parties about this or that. Maybe everybody could just be happy with the status quo for a change instead of fighting over some issues that are so divisive to the country. Maybe we could elect a president on what he can actually do for the country instead of what he will take away from the other party. Just a thought. Well, I hate the two party system to start with...I think it's a failed system. So to me it would just be a constant cycle of taking away liberties. |
|
