5/16/2010 2:11pm, #21
Actually, the anti-civil rights people use "outrage", rhetoric and theater to motive an otherwise unmotivated citizenry to remove their civil right. The NRA and other organizations have to adhere to a stricter standard simply to maintain organizational credibility. The anti-civil rights organizations may make and have made, written and published information and statistics that were later shown to be false or misleading.
In this case the advantage is held by the anti-civil rights organizations. They have nothing to lose and the most to gain.
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 5/16/2010 2:31pm at .
5/16/2010 3:15pm, #22
5/16/2010 3:31pm, #23
Well, your problem is that the 1968 gun ban DID come EXACTLY from the same ban the Nazi's put in place. BOTH are on the net, and you can read them.
YOUR off point comment about the immigration laws (fatuous on its face, EVERY cop when they pull you over asks for your drivers license, your "papers," or the terrorist bill that not only has Obama renewed but actually made stronger, and taking away more civil rights. However, with a progressive its all ok as long as a progressive does it. Still, it has NOTHING to do with gun rights, so can we stay on point?
As to what you support as a liberal, I spoke to that in the second post on this thread. I neither need or want your support. Just the defeat of your notions.
If you were not a libertarian in name only, we would not be having this discussion at all. The true libertarians such as Penn Jellete all support gun rights as put forth by the founding fathers.
Finally, lets take a walk down memory lane:
<<<One source of gun advocates' concern about Ms. Kagan is that she, as a Clinton aide, helped draft a presidential directive temporarily suspending imports of semiautomatic assault-type rifles. In the directive, the president raised concerns that the rifles weren't suitable for "sporting purposes," and thus could be restricted.
"The number of weapons at issue underscores the potential threat to the public health and safety that necessitates immediate action," the directive said.>>>
Here of course was the left, stating that the second amendment was about duck hunting. There were several "sportsman" groups who tried to smear the NRA, just like you see here. They ALL took the idea that it was about duck hunting. However, that is a progressive notion, not a legitimate one based on the founders.
So, again, I am not trying to change your mind. Just going to keep speaking the truth about the NRA, the Gun Debate, and the lies the progressives tell....
Last edited by Mtripp; 5/16/2010 3:37pm at ."Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." -- Hericletus, circa 500 BC
5/16/2010 3:34pm, #24
Nice try, but I reject the premise. On the issue of who supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms, there is no question who is for it and who is against it.
But thanks for making my point....."Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." -- Hericletus, circa 500 BC
5/16/2010 5:10pm, #25
As an outsider living in a country where the gun laws are very simple:
- You can carry a gun when you need it for your profession.
- sportshooters leave their weapons in a personal safe (preferably) at the shooting range
- hunters have only access to hunting type of weapons.
- semi/full-automatic assault weapons are prohibited for the general populations (civilians) to own.
- EVERY weapon/owner connection is documented.
I find this black and white view that I see on these forums weird.
I've got nothing against gun owners and 2nd amendments, NRA etc, but I believe that some weapon types should be banned from a civilezed society, to be exact the (semi/full) assault riffle and that .50 contraption that is in Gezere's avatar.
These two types of weapon have got nothing to do with:
- hunting: if you need an AR to hunt deer...start fishing as a new hobby.
- home defense: a lot of homes are made out of wood, most of the time the childrens bedroom is at the other side of the stairs than the parents bedroom. So maybe it's not a good idea to have them grab an AR when they hear a suspisios sound downstairs
- self-defense: carrying ARs in public as a legal self-defense weapon...only if your name is Salmon Rhusdie.
- sport shooting: you don't need a .50 to do some clay pigeon shooting, for clay pteradactyl shooting yes, for clay pigeon shooting no.
- defense against the goverment: The weapon of choice is called voting. Don't like the programs of the two main parties...vote on a third.
If you say that the criminals will have access to those weapons, make it simple: you get caught with an AR or a .50, it's 5 years hardtime, no parool, no time of for good behaviour and you will see that weapon dissapear also from the criminal side and from the gangs. Get caught a second time, congrats you're going away for 10 years.
If you say that the 2nd amendment garentees you from having the same weapons as your Militairy has and is a right, where do you say stop? Can your neighbour that hates your guts because your dog always shits on his lawn buy himself an Abrahams M1 Tank? Can Wallmart start selling small tactical nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line?
Pistols, revolvers, shotguns, hunting riffles are more than enough to have in a civilized society. Leave the ARs and other (heavier) weaponry in the hands of the Militairy, who should be trained to use them and have to leave them on the base when they are on r&r. But it would be a funny sight to see the wife of an Apache pilot takes the gunship to K-Mart for her weekly shopping.
Last edited by Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs; 5/16/2010 5:13pm at .Originally Posted by Jiujitsu77Originally Posted by HumanzeeOriginally Posted by jk55299 on Keysi Fighting Method
5/16/2010 6:41pm, #26
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
You are creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. .50 rifles are massively expensive to buy along with the ammunition. Add in the fact that they are extremely heavy and long and you have a piece that isn't very useful for the common criminal. To use a .50 rifle during a crime is almost unheard of; in fact I've read there have only been 2 instances in America where a .50 rifle was used in a crime. Your assertion that .50 rifles do not have a civilian purpose is also false. There are organized mega long range target shooting competitions where .50 calibers are used.
Why do you think AR-15's shouldn't be allowed for the general public? Is it the caliber, magazine capacity, or its negative portrayal in the media? Keep in mind that AR are only semi automatic. They are not a fully auto gun.
This is a semi-automatic which shoots a caliber far more powerful than an AR. Do you think this gun is acceptable for ownership? http://35cal.com/gunpics/rem_mod750_lg.jpg
Last edited by Shamash; 5/16/2010 6:42pm at . Reason: picture
5/16/2010 7:44pm, #27
You keep using progressive as a negative term but its root word is progress or to move forward. The term has just been given a negative connotation just like socialist and marxist and communist and the rest by right wingers needing camera time. So when you keep harping on progressives you just reinforce that you are more concerned with political affiliation than actual political views. Just say anti gun. It is more specific especially for this topic because as shown there are progressives and liberals and non conservatives that are also pro gun who want to show their pro gun feelings without being lumped in with conservatives and tea baggers.
5/16/2010 9:41pm, #28
5/16/2010 9:43pm, #29
5/16/2010 9:44pm, #30