My FB post on guns & civillians...

[SP1966]

Guess which of these three is anti-gun rights? LMAO!! If he were being honest he would need a second set of hand to cover his eyes as those anti-2nd amendment idiots are unwilling to hear or see the facts, they are however very willing to speak their, umm, mindlessness.

[mslman71]

qft

I just sent my opinion on Feinstein's to be proposed legislation to my rep and senators. Might as well get out in front it.

[Marius_Ursus]

Something that's been bugging me that a lot of people have already brought up is how since this "assault weapon" (I still need to get my hands on a cute an' cuddly weapon.) argument reared up again is that if I have an M14, I can crank off rounds as fast as with an AR15 and shoot at a greater distance and be almost guaranteed a kill with every trigger pull, but because it doesn't have a pistol grip and an obvious magazine well, it's not in the gun control crowd's reticle.

[VoxExMachina]

Something that's been bugging me that a lot of people have already brought up is how since this "assault weapon" (I still need to get my hands on a cute an' cuddly weapon.) argument reared up again is that if I have an M14, I can crank off rounds as fast as with an AR15 and shoot at a greater distance and be almost guaranteed a kill with every trigger pull, but because it doesn't have a pistol grip and an obvious magazine well, it's not in the gun control crowd's reticle.

Shhh.....

[DeTazMan]

Something that's been bugging me that a lot of people have already brought up is how since this "assault weapon" (I still need to get my hands on a cute an' cuddly weapon.) argument reared up again is that if I have an M14, I can crank off rounds as fast as with an AR15 and shoot at a greater distance and be almost guaranteed a kill with every trigger pull, but because it doesn't have a pistol grip and an obvious magazine well, it's not in the gun control crowd's reticle.

Dont give them any more ammunition... Besides they havent listed the weapons that are included yet.. Last I heard there were 120 of them and guidelines for ones they haven;t named

[whatevergirl]

Dont give them any more ammunition...

you're so punny...

[DeTazMan]

you're so punny...

I try... I try... <<Takes a Bow>>> Thanks for congrats earlier... Tried To IM you but it was turned off

[whatevergirl]

I try... I try... <<Takes a Bow>>> Thanks for congrats earlier... Tried To IM you but it was turned off

you're quite welcome.

[NorwichGrad]

Something that's been bugging me that a lot of people have already brought up is how since this "assault weapon" (I still need to get my hands on a cute an' cuddly weapon.) argument reared up again is that if I have an M14, I can crank off rounds as fast as with an AR15 and shoot at a greater distance and be almost guaranteed a kill with every trigger pull, but because it doesn't have a pistol grip and an obvious magazine well, it's not in the gun control crowd's reticle.

But if you remove the woodstock and replace it with a collapsible EBR stock with pistol grip, attach a removable bayonet lug, mount an ACOG on top of the Picatinny rail, a laser beam right below the muzzle, a set of Harris Bipod, hook up a tactical 3-point sling, duct tape a secondary magazine upside down to the primary magazine so you have 100-round rock-and-roll capability, then your classic Springfield M1A becomes an 'automatic military assault battle rifle close quarter combat skull crusher'......And you will get some attention..

Oh, and don't forget the green pouch thingy..

[Corbi]

(I still need to get my hands on a cute an' cuddly weapon.)

I think my lil .22 jennings is cute, nail clippers for size reference.

[mslman71]

I think my lil .22 jennings is cute, nail clippers for size reference.

That looks a lot more comfortable than my P3AT.

[Corbi]

That looks a lot more comfortable than my P3AT.

It's actually not bad to hold and shoot and is reasonably accurate, so long as the target isn't more than 15 yds away.

But look at it in the eyes of the liberal media it has a "clip" as they like to say and holds more than 5 rds....OMG it's an assault weapon!

[DeTazMan]

I think my lil .22 jennings is cute, nail clippers for size reference.

Lot smaller than my P91DC

[mslman71]

It's actually not bad to hold and shoot and is reasonably accurate, so long as the target isn't more than 15 yds away.

But look at it in the eyes of the liberal media it has a "clip" as they like to say and holds more than 5 rds....OMG it's an assault weapon!

The p3 is like trying to hold onto a belt sander. My hand was bloodied after 50 rounds. Damn thing hops all over the place. I'd much rather carry my P220 but I'd need to wear suspenders.

The best carry I had from a comfort standpoint was the Walther PPS but I had numerous FTF. The dealer polished to feedramp for me but it would still occasionally fail at the range so out it went.

[Ikeman83]

There is absolutely no reason any civilian should have access to an automatic weapon, NONE. Why the f'ck would a mom want to purchase the type of guns this woman had? Why, for what? To hunt? What the f'ck was she planning on hunting 1000 ducks? 100 deers, WHAT? Why would any civilian need a gun that can shoot multiple bullets within seconds? If you want a gun to protect your home, get a revolver or a shotgun/rifle why would you need an AK47 or a glock? Who do you think is going to break into your home, the army? Wake the f'ck up people, there is no need for any person to own any kind of automatic weapon, there is absolutely no reason, NONE, any civilian should own a automatic or semi-automatic gun, none. These guns are made to kill period. I do however understand owning a hand gun (revolver) or shotgun/rifle in your home or place of business for protection. F'ck the second amendment/right to bear arms, the people who wrote it (and the ones who protect/believe in it) are f'cking dumb retarded motherf'ckers that should have THEIR children killed with an automatic weapon, maybe see first hand what that kind of gun does to the head of a child.

That is how I feel, you guys can carry on, on why you believe people should have the right and argue till your face turn blue.

You're a moron. Worse, you're a horribly uninformed moron. The mother of the shooter at Sandy Hook didn't own an automatic weapon, she owned semi-automatic weapons. Second, virtually every gun on the planet is semi-automatic.

I'm glad that you think that the authors of the Constitution were dumb. Their stupidity allows you to post whatever you want on the internet, without fear of the state police (state as in government, not political subdivision) breaking down your front door. I suppose you think that the right to vote, right to freedom of religion, and right to due process are stupid too. It would be so much easier for you to live in this country if everyone just had your views, and you could do whatever you wanted to/with them without them having an opportunity or avenue for opposition or redress, now wouldn't it?

[Corbi]

Their stupidity allows you to post whatever you want on the internet, without fear of the state police (state as in government, not political subdivision) breaking down your front door.

Well not quite, there are a few keywords that I sure as hell am not going to string together in a sentence.

[erinlee01]

Well not quite, there are a few keywords that I sure as hell am not going to string together in a sentence.

Wuss.

[lotusdeva]

What is all this crap? Actual facts? You actually looked back at the writings of the Founding Fathers to determine what their intent was???

Seems legit, but some lady on the internet said that the 2nd Amendment was for protection against the British Army.

So, I just do not know what to believe now.

Thank you for taking time and googling these quotes for me. You shouldn't have. In any rate though, I believe that when Founding Fathers were taking about keeping and bearing arms, it was meant for military purposes - i.e. national defense. You can interpret it however you want to, google 100 different links, quotes, documents. We are not in Civil War, times have changed (alot) and I believe we need to adapt and adjust to those changes. That is, of course, only my opinion.

[Dave76]

... I believe that when Founding Fathers were taking about keeping and bearing arms, it was meant for military purposes

So, you didn't read the quotes.

[VoxExMachina]

Thank you for taking time and googling these quotes for me. You shouldn't have. In any rate though, I believe that when Founding Fathers were taking about keeping and bearing arms, it was meant for military purposes - i.e. national defense. You can interpret it however you want to, google 100 different links, quotes, documents. We are not in Civil War, times have changed (alot) and I believe we need to adapt and adjust to those changes. That is, of course, only my opinion.

Perhaps you missed this little nugget, which pretty much summarizes what the Founding Fathers were thinking:


Samuel Adams:

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” –Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788


or this...


Richard Henry Lee:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

George Mason:

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” –George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788








But no doubt you are much smarter than the group of individuals who not only overthrew a tyrannical government, but established the constitution and created the most powerful and free nation on the planet.

[erinlee01]

Thank you for taking time and googling these quotes for me. You shouldn't have. In any rate though, I believe that when Founding Fathers were taking about keeping and bearing arms, it was meant for military purposes - i.e. national defense. You can interpret it however you want to, google 100 different links, quotes, documents. We are not in Civil War, times have changed (alot) and I believe we need to adapt and adjust to those changes. That is, of course, only my opinion.

And what are you basing that opinion on? It's all well and good to have an opinion, but you should do some research before forming it. Otherwise you look silly when debating people who have actually taken the time to understand history. Times haven't changed as much as you think.

[lotusdeva]

And what are you basing that opinion on? It's all well and good to have an opinion, but you should do some research before forming it. Otherwise you look silly when debating people who have actually taken the time to understand history. Times haven't changed as much as you think.

I have done plenty of research in school (did undergrad in Gov't and Int' Politics). Honestly, I don't feel like googlig quotes. I can form and express my opinion based on what I know, objective thinking, if you will. Second Amendement was written at a certain time in history when arming the militia was necessary for national security. What happened to the universal militia service? Google it. After that google National Guard. Hopefully, you are familiar with WWII. And now we are here, in a present with the most powerful army in the world. Times have chanted ALOT. Time to adjust. IMXO, of course.

[DeTazMan]

I have done plenty of research in school (did undergrad in Gov't and Int' Politics). Honestly, I don't feel like googlig quotes. I can form and express my opinion based on what I know, objective thinking, if you will. Second Amendement was written at a certain time in history when arming the militia was necessary for national security. What happened to the universal militia service? Google it. After that google National Guard. Hopefully, you are familiar with WWII. And now we are here, in a present with the most powerful army in the world. Times have chanted ALOT. Time to adjust. IMXO, of course.

Interesting you say that. Google governments that have had citizens register Firearms and then used said registration to disarm their citizens.

[lotusdeva]

Perhaps you missed this little nugget, which pretty much summarizes what the Founding Fathers were thinking:


Samuel Adams:

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” –Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788


or this...


Richard Henry Lee:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

George Mason:

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” –George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788









But no doubt you are much smarter than the group of individuals who not only overthrew a tyrannical government, but established the constitution and created the most powerful and free nation on the planet.

oh, funny you bring it up, the militia. You do know it included men from the age of 17-45 ( or 47). So no women or, well, alot of you guys here.

[lotusdeva]

Interesting you say that. Google governments that have had citizens register Firearms and then used said registration to disarm their citizens.

Please continue - which governments? Time period? What was the political arena, economic situation, historic background?

[VoxExMachina]

I have done plenty of research in school (did undergrad in Gov't and Int' Politics). Honestly, I don't feel like googlig quotes. I can form and express my opinion based on what I know, objective thinking, if you will. Second Amendement was written at a certain time in history when arming the militia was necessary for national security. What happened to the universal militia service? Google it. After that google National Guard. Hopefully, you are familiar with WWII. And now we are here, in a present with the most powerful army in the world. Times have chanted ALOT. Time to adjust. IMXO, of course.

Well, as a former member of "the militia", I at that time pledged my life to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did not specifically pledge to defend the government of the united states. If the government could trust me with a firearm when it served their purposes, they can damn well trust me with one now for my own.

I think your posts show a great deal of the type of thinking that the constitution was meant to protect us from, and you conveniently keep mis-interpreting what the founding fathers intended to suit your own beliefs.

Good luck with your lack of critical thinking goals in 2013.

[Dave76]

oh, funny you bring it up, the militia. You do know it included men from the age of 17-45 ( or 47). So no women or, well, alot of you guys here.

And yet, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arm for everyone, regardless of age or gender. Even if you can't serve in the militia. So, tell me again how the 2nd amendment was only about militias?

[VoxExMachina]

oh, funny you bring it up, the militia. You do know it included men from the age of 17-45 ( or 47). So no women or, well, alot of you guys here.

I served for 8 years. So yes, I'm pretty sure I know what the militia is.

[erinlee01]

I have done plenty of research in school (did undergrad in Gov't and Int' Politics). Honestly, I don't feel like googlig quotes. I can form and express my opinion based on what I know, objective thinking, if you will. Second Amendement was written at a certain time in history when arming the militia was necessary for national security. What happened to the universal militia service? Google it. After that google National Guard. Hopefully, you are familiar with WWII. And now we are here, in a present with the most powerful army in the world. Times have chanted ALOT. Time to adjust. IMXO, of course.

OK, you are partially right. The idea was to have a militia. The piece you missed in your undergrad studies that was the reason they wanted a militia. They had just gotten out from under an oppressive, organized military force. By allowing every citizen to be armed, they were guaranteeing that we would never fall under one of those again.

So, yes, we have a powerful army. Which is under the control of the commander in chief, the president. Who now has made it so that American citizens can be held without due process, and can be spied on at will.

Human nature hasn't changed that much. The government is slowly taking more and more power and taking away the rights of people. It would appear that our founding fathers had a better understanding of human nature than most supposedly educated Americans today.

[DeTazMan]

Please continue - which governments? Time period? What was the political arena, economic situation, historic background?

In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.

In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.

In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.

In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.