Obama plans to BAN 5.56 through executive order

[Unhelpful]

ikr what a fool I was guns obviously don't kill people

Correct.

 

So about you "sniper rifle"

[heathd]

[Unhelpful]

 

Fuckin shady ass bullets.

[heathd]

Fuckin shady ass bullets.

That's why you never trust a loaded gun. Can't count on bullets to keep their shit together.

[spartaman64]

Correct.

So about you "sniper rifle"

I'm going to be upgrading to a m4 rifle as soon as I can and take gunning lessons. when you think about it statistically more good people will buy guns than bad people if guns are legal and the good people will gun down the bad people. we need as much good people with guns as possible until bad people go extincted and we will have very little crime

[Trik'Stari]

I'm going to be upgrading to a m4 rifle as soon as I can and take gunning lessons. when you think about it statistically more good people will buy guns than bad people if guns are legal and the good people will gun down the bad people. we need as much good people with guns as possible until bad people go extincted and we will have very little crime

Careful, that might go against the democrat/socialist/communist agenda and thus you will be called "ignorat. racist. redneck. sexist. etc."

 

Anti-gun laws only effectively disarm those who follow the law. End of story, period. People who aren't supposed to have guns (convicted felons) already can't buy a gun from a licensed firearm dealer. Firearms dealers get checked SEVERAL times a year. If a gun is missing from their inventory, and there is no record of sale including a background check, they lose their license, the guns they own, get charged with a felony, and go to jail.

 

We already have a firearms registry, it's just not called that. Every FFL dealer is required by federal law to keep records of all gun sales and background checks, which can be checked at a whim by the ATF. They already know who has bought a weapon from a gun dealer. They already know who has bought a weapon from someone other than a gun dealer, why? because they're SPYING ON EVERYONE. We already know all of this to be fact. The point is, they know who does, and does not have a gun. The idea of stricter gun laws is mean for one thing, to disarm citizens who carry legally, and increase dependency on the government. End of story.

[linuxfan66]

Careful, that might go against the democrat/socialist/communist agenda and thus you will be called "ignorat. racist. redneck. sexist. etc."

 

Anti-gun laws only effectively disarm those who follow the law. End of story, period. People who aren't supposed to have guns (convicted felons) already can't buy a gun from a licensed firearm dealer. Firearms dealers get checked SEVERAL times a year. If a gun is missing from their inventory, and there is no record of sale including a background check, they lose their license, the guns they own, get charged with a felony, and go to jail.

 

We already have a firearms registry, it's just not called that. Every FFL dealer is required by federal law to keep records of all gun sales and background checks, which can be checked at a whim by the ATF. They already know who has bought a weapon from a gun dealer. They already know who has bought a weapon from someone other than a gun dealer, why? because they're SPYING ON EVERYONE. We already know all of this to be fact. The point is, they know who does, and does not have a gun. The idea of stricter gun laws is mean for one thing, to disarm citizens who carry legally, and increase dependency on the government. End of story.

And how is government dependency inherenty evil? Assult rifles are not civilian weapons and never should be. and last time i checked the government will always have more and better weapons than you. And before you ask im ok with ownerships of normal rifles and handguns. heck i dont object to open carry of hand guns.

[Toddskins]

That is a shitty argument.  Hypothetically, if no one had guns then even the crazy people can live.  Your way dictates people have to kill each other to defend themselves.

 

Sure criminals will exist in the real world.  With with tighter gun restrictions, the "crazies" don't get guns.  You know that if you are carrying, you are a criminal.  But if open carry is allowed, a nutcase feels entitled.  Chaos ensues and weapon manufacturers get rich. 

 

You guys are defending a cycle of violence that benefits very few people.  I would love to see you guys argue that private corporate prisons are a great idea.

 

I don't like the idea of taking away the freedom to own guns.  I also don't like the idea that you NEED a gun to be safe... kind of fucked up, huh? 

 

How about the US stop involving themselves in offensive wars and start truly working on the low end of social infrastructure.  IDK, all this shit-talk about how guns are good goes too far.

If you knew how to think then you would not make stupid remarks about valid arguments.  My argument was valid.

And the rest of your post is all dream shit.  The reality is that there ARE guns everywhere, and just like during the Revolutionary War the citizens needed to ban together to stop the tyranny of the king of England.  That is the WHOLE and main purpose of the 2nd Amendment, for the people to arm and protect themselves against the tyranny of its own Federal government getting too powerful.  The US Constitution is designed to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal branch of Gov't.  Read the document, jack ass, and try to learn what being an American is about.

Then, after the British were defeated, those bunch of smart guys (yourself not included) wrote and voted on the US Constitution which guarantees all men, everywhere the right to keep and bear arms.  Even silly goofs like yourself.

The imperialistic aggression that all you foreigners see being made by the US Gov't trampling all over the Mid-East and Africa, etc., has nothing to do with the argument at hand, i.e. the rights of men, everywhere, to be able to protect themselves, both against Gov't tyranny and criminals in general.  (There are a few sites that aggregate all the stories that happen daily, where people's homes and businesses have been targeted by criminals and the owners defended themselves and their loved ones.  These great stories are almost never aired on mainstream news.  I see these stories in print, photo, and video, daily. You should subscribe, too, on Facebook if you like, and get educated so you would applaud the girls and women who safeguarded their families.  Yes, females defend themselves, too!)

The issues about America invading other lands is because there is an elite that has sabotaged our gov't, and the people are still asleep as to the matter.  It's in our US Constitution that only by a Declaration of War by Congress, can the Armed Forces be sent off to a War, and only then does the President act like the Military Commander.  We have NOT had a Declaration of War by Congress since World War 2!  All these "conflicts" since are illegal!  The president is not the Military Commander when we are not at war.  So there are all types of illegal things going on, and the people of the USA are guilty for allowing it.  We are guilty of all the killings of those families of men and women and children, who have every right to hate the invasion of their country by US forces.  We would hate the Russians if they had their forces in downtown Dallas, Texas, so it's no wonder they hate us for invading their land, and all on false pretenses.

But back to the main point of this thread, you socialist Democrats  really need to have a wake-up call, and find you are in the wrong camp.  Democrats platform is wrong on every point.  The Republicans platform is wrong on a few points, but the main problem with the Republicans is that they are traitors to the original platform.  It has always been Democrats that were in office when wars were started, not Republicans.  Roosevelt in WW2.  Truman for the Korean conflict.  Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam.  And then things change with the Bush family and the elitist money of that upper echelon of beyond rich, and the corruption of the US government is now at its worst in the past 30 years, with Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama all moving the country further along to the New World Order.  So now the presidency means very little.  It's owned by the New World Order.  And don't think for a single second that raising taxes is unrelated to this whole affair.  Taking money (stealing via taxation) takes freedom away from people.  Economic freedom is at the heart of being free.  Free to come and go and conduct business and live your life, freely.  Taking money from people, especially the poor, is a major crime, and helps to fund tyranny even more.  And it's here, that both parties are in bed together.  Dems and Repubs love money!  The vote is not sacred any longer, I believe.

And yet, if the people did in fact start to rise and wake up, it's not too late to stop the evil that is a beast in every sense of the word.  But taking away the guns and ammo of the people is the absolute most WRONG thing to do.  Then the beast has won for sure.

[stconquest]

If you knew how to think then you would not make stupid remarks about valid arguments.  My argument was valid.

And the rest of your post is all dream shit.  The reality is that there ARE guns everywhere, and just like during the Revolutionary War the citizens needed to ban together to stop the tyranny of the king of England.  That is the WHOLE and main purpose of the 2nd Amendment, for the people to arm and protect themselves against the tyranny of its own Federal government getting too powerful.  The US Constitution is designed to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal branch of Gov't.  Read the document, jack ass, and try to learn what being an American is about.

Then, after the British were defeated, those bunch of smart guys (yourself not included) wrote and voted on the US Constitution which guarantees all men, everywhere the right to keep and bear arms.  Even silly goofs like yourself.

-snip-

 

Your argument was:  If everyone had a gun on them, and a crazy person decided to start shooting people, then the rest of the non-crazy people would return fire and take him out... this is your better scenario.  People would die.  It is a "shitty" argument.

 

Adversely, if no one had guns on them and a crazy person became violent, the damage to life would be much more controllable.  You are wrong... really.

 

The rest of your terrible history lesson aside, why are you so angry?  Why the name calling? 

 

The US fought off the British and declared independence... whoop-da-fucken-do!!!  The US prosperity barely lasted a century before the government started caving to international pressures and handed the value of any and all citizen labor to private financiers (Fed).  In case you don't understand, the time spent working for every individual in the USA has a value.  That value is not under the control of the US government or your people... but you beat the fucking British, so you are all good. 

 

If the military turned on your population, how far are your AR's gonna take you...really?

 

The fact that you are grouping individuals in camps (ie Republican/Democrat/etc...) hints that you are affected by the media campaigns to a degree that makes it difficult to have this discussion.

 

Back to the point, your argument is shit.  Crazy people without guns are truly better than crazy people with guns.

[Toddskins]

Your argument was:  If everyone had a gun on them, and a crazy person decided to start shooting people, then the rest of the non-crazy people would return fire and take him out... this is your better scenario.  People would die.  It is a "shitty" argument.

 

Adversely, if no one had guns on them and a crazy person became violent, the damage to life would be much more controllable.  You are wrong... really.

 

The rest of your terrible history lesson aside, why are you so angry?  Why the name calling? 

 

The US fought off the British and declared independence... whoop-da-fucken-do!!!  The US prosperity barely lasted a century before the government started caving to international pressures and handed the value of any and all citizen labor to private financiers (Fed).  In case you don't understand, the time spent working for every individual in the USA has a value.  That value is not under the control of the US government or your people... but you beat the fucking British, so you are all good. 

 

If the military turned on your population, how far are your AR's gonna take you...really?

 

The fact that you are grouping individuals in camps (ie Republican/Democrat/etc...) hints that you are affected by the media campaigns to a degree that makes it difficult to have this discussion.

 

Back to the point, your argument is shit.  Crazy people without guns are truly better than crazy people with guns.

Because you seemed to live in a fantasy world.  There is no such thing as people not having weapons.  And in order for your scenario to succeed, first you must disarm the citizenry by government thugs with weapons.  Agreed?  And then who will have guns?  Only the enslavers -- the overlords.

 

There has never been a time in the history of the world that people have been "good".  Everybody has sinned, and continue to sin.  So your utopian idea is based on a false notion, and worse, you wish to commit crime against the law-abiding citizens so that the only people with weapons are the rulers (mafia but by a different name).

Secondly, in all the scenarios where a madman went nuts, some were in fact stopped cold by an armed citizen.  

What you must prefer (since your dreamland is just that, a dream) is that the crazy man on drugs, or just angry at the world, should just have a greater hayday and kill more innocent people, until, of course, the police arrive long after the killing of more people has happened.

So there you have it.  My argument defined, and your fantasy put in mud.

And as for the history lesson, a lot of people need to hear it.  Yourself included.

Americans during the Revolutionary War were not great because they killed the Red coat British.  No.  They were great for standing up against tyranny and beating it back into place.

[Toddskins]

And if now the philosophy of dreams is what this thread is going to be about, I wish that all girls at the age of 5  would be mandated by the government to learn the martial arts, and at age 11 begin to learn how to fire rifles and handguns, and by the age of 18, every girl should be encouraged to carry a gun.   Perhaps then the hideous crime of trafficking might be alleviated some.  If there is anybody deserving more of being shot, is the kidnappers who sexually assault and abuse girls and young boys.  Let's teach them to use guns and defend themselves.

[stconquest]

@Toddskins  Being such an expert on what is fantasy and what is reality, I really have to ask you:  How is it that you don't realize you are having a fantastical argument with an opponent that does not exist?

 

"Americans during the Revolutionary War were not great because they killed the Red coat British.  No.  They were great for standing up against tyranny and beating it back into place."

 

They fought and died to hold on to their personal value with guns, and lost the very thing they struggled for with the stroke of a pen.

 

Cycle of violence buddy... you might be part of the problem. 

[Lewellyn]

---

 

Ah look, another irrational conspiracy theorist diatribe.

[TetraSky]

Why would you even need an AR is beyond me...  Clearly not a rifle for hunting.. and if you need anything more than a pistol for "defending" your home, you're clearly in need of serious training.

I say good move from Obama.

[Charger]

Why would you even need an AR is beyond me...  Clearly not a rifle for hunting.. and if you need anything more than a pistol for "defending" your home, you're clearly in need of serious training.

I say good move from Obama.

target shooting... you do know that most AR shoot 2.23 as well as 5.56 and the ban would have only banned ammo mainly made by the US government and would had only removed the cheaper ammo and not really effected anything other then a slight price increase in 5.56 ammo

[BOT Edward]

Im still amazed that you guys can buy these kind of weapons lol.

"I need an AR15 for hunting, I want to make sure that the fluffy little bunny I shoot will drop"

 

How could one even justify needing a gun like this, I understand a single shot rifle for hunting but you dont need to mince your kills with bullets :lol:

[Fred Castellum]

My my what a interesting thread... have I been here before?