Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#833 Jan 10, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>Hammers or blunt objects kill more people than rifles each year
These two didn't use rifles, Crain. Try and keep up.

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#834 Jan 10, 2013
tallyho wrote:
the freedoms we of the past/present/tomorrow are right here in front of you.....
you can post/criticize/speak out against our government ... try this in other countries
Unless you're Piers Morgan and then you have 100,000 morons petitioning the Government to deport you.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#835 Jan 10, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>Hammers or blunt objects kill more people than rifles each year
I now know why the NRA has flip-flopped on the old additch, "More people die from automobile accidents each year than from guns."

By the end of 2013 this will no longer be the case:

http://www.newsleader.com/usatoday/article/17...

Stick with blunt objects, Crain - they're bound to show lop-sided results - at least for another year or so.

I wonder what you twits will come up with next? Heart desease?

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#836 Jan 10, 2013
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text> Unless you're Piers Morgan and then you have 100,000 morons petitioning the Government to deport you.
show me

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#837 Jan 10, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
I now know why the NRA has flip-flopped on the old additch, "More people die from automobile accidents each year than from guns."
By the end of 2013 this will no longer be the case:
http://www.newsleader.com/usatoday/article/17...
Stick with blunt objects, Crain - they're bound to show lop-sided results - at least for another year or so.
I wonder what you twits will come up with next? Heart desease?
Rifles are used so seldom in crime yet the liberals want to ban them based on how they look instead of how they function. Any gun is an assault weapon. The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. Look at the governments program of sky marshals

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#840 Jan 10, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>Rifles are used so seldom in crime yet the liberals want to ban them based on how they look instead of how they function. Any gun is an assault weapon. The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. Look at the governments program of sky marshals
Where does it say "rifles?" At least read the article first before you attempt another "spin."

"In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010."

Truth be told, firearm deaths will continue to rise while automobiles, with all of their safety mandates and regulations, are getting safer.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#841 Jan 10, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>Rifles are used so seldom in crime yet the liberals want to ban them based on how they look instead of how they function. Any gun is an assault weapon. The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. Look at the governments program of sky marshals
Maybe you don't think of school/theater/mall/etc. shootings as "crimes" but, there's been a lot of those lately, Crain. Children are not "collateral damage" so a few freaks can act as if their is only one Constitutional right and that it literally supersedes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#842 Jan 10, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say "rifles?" At least read the article first before you attempt another "spin."
"In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010."
Truth be told, firearm deaths will continue to rise while automobiles, with all of their safety mandates and regulations, are getting safer.
Really, I think the issue is capacity. You don't need a 100 round magazine to bag a deer. The hunting argument is stupid but, if we want to go there, let's say that all the mean, nasty semi-autos are fine provided they are limited to, oh, six round magazines. And anyone possessing altered or nonlegal mags can be convicted of a felony.

I'd be down with that. Plus you'd still be able to defend yourself.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#843 Jan 10, 2013
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, I think the issue is capacity. You don't need a 100 round magazine to bag a deer. The hunting argument is stupid but, if we want to go there, let's say that all the mean, nasty semi-autos are fine provided they are limited to, oh, six round magazines. And anyone possessing altered or nonlegal mags can be convicted of a felony.
I'd be down with that. Plus you'd still be able to defend yourself.
Unless you run up against and have tags for a herd of deer, more than one shot is ALWAYS wasted. If you miss with the first shot, chances are you won't get a chance for a second - let alone a third. The hunting arguement is invalid, IMO. And if you need a semi-automatic for defense purposes, you need to move. Lastly, if you're paranoid enough to use the "tyrannical government" justification, I can't think of any scenario that's turned out well when American people use weapons against any government agency.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

#844 Jan 10, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
yep you make up words , like you do knowledge ...
call me stupid , but unlike you I know that the earth is round , some people walk in the dark even when there is light , come out of the darkness ,
Still deflecting I see. Come on judge, ask the supreme court for your opinion, so that you can dazzle all of us with your brilliance, or just continue to baffle us with your bullsh@t.

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#845 Jan 10, 2013
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, I think the issue is capacity. You don't need a 100 round magazine to bag a deer. The hunting argument is stupid but, if we want to go there, let's say that all the mean, nasty semi-autos are fine provided they are limited to, oh, six round magazines. And anyone possessing altered or nonlegal mags can be convicted of a felony.
I'd be down with that. Plus you'd still be able to defend yourself.
A criminal will make/acquire any capacity magazine they want, why am I limited(10) to a magazine that is less than the designed amount(15)? Does 11 or more rounds make me a maniac? If I am accosted by a group of criminals, I would like to be equally or better armed with more than enough capacity to defend myself. If six rounds is enough, then why do police, military and legally allowed citizens almost always opt for the higher capacity? Why am I going to be required to reload my magazines twice as often at the range? So we can have an aspirin for cancer? Hunting limits are totally a different argument about sportsman ethics.

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#846 Jan 10, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you run up against and have tags for a herd of deer, more than one shot is ALWAYS wasted. If you miss with the first shot, chances are you won't get a chance for a second - let alone a third. The hunting arguement is invalid, IMO. And if you need a semi-automatic for defense purposes, you need to move. Lastly, if you're paranoid enough to use the "tyrannical government" justification, I can't think of any scenario that's turned out well when American people use weapons against any government agency.
I've been thinking a lot about the tyrannical government canard. The last time the government did something, in masses, to majorly restrict freedoms (we're not talking about seatbelt laws or being frisked at the airport) was likely during WW2 - the internment of US citizens with Japanese heritage.

So, suppose that happened again and you were in that minority. And suppose you were also a rabid NRA, rwnj and had always insisted, vocally, that 'they' could have your guns when they pried them out of your cold, dead hands. Then one day they show and say "hand them over." If you resist, with force, they will shoot you, no question. You're dead, and they have your guns. If they are there to round you up and send you to a camp, and you resist, same outcome.

Or suppose that Obama, by Executive Order, outlaws ALL guns and comes for Denny Crain's first. If Denny refuses they will insist. If he tried to defend himself with his AK47 they will surely kill him. Game over.

Where it all falls down is assuming that the majority of folks will be behind an anti government movement. There's a large percentage of folks who don't like guns. There's a large percentage of folks who prefer the status quo and wouldn't want their world upended in another Civil War over something as stupid as 100 round mags to protect yourself from tyranny. It's a non starter.

So, really, there IS NO POINT in keeping high capacity mags or automatic weapons. Frankly, it's just a phenomenal waste of money.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#847 Jan 10, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>If I am accosted by a group of criminals, I would like to be equally or better armed with more than enough capacity to defend myself.
So you walk around town with your AR strapped to your back?

Where do you live? Beruit?

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#848 Jan 10, 2013
Someone here will point out the whole Germany/Hitler thing. We can play that game, too. Do you imagine that no one stood up to Hitler? LOL So, assume that someone did. What do you imagine happened to that person?

Even 70 years ago, a gun was not enough to protect yourself from the tyranny of a government. It really is a fool's argument.

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#849 Jan 10, 2013
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been thinking a lot about the tyrannical government canard. The last time the government did something, in masses, to majorly restrict freedoms (we're not talking about seatbelt laws or being frisked at the airport) was likely during WW2 - the internment of US citizens with Japanese heritage.
So, suppose that happened again and you were in that minority. And suppose you were also a rabid NRA, rwnj and had always insisted, vocally, that 'they' could have your guns when they pried them out of your cold, dead hands. Then one day they show and say "hand them over." If you resist, with force, they will shoot you, no question. You're dead, and they have your guns. If they are there to round you up and send you to a camp, and you resist, same outcome.
Or suppose that Obama, by Executive Order, outlaws ALL guns and comes for Denny Crain's first. If Denny refuses they will insist. If he tried to defend himself with his AK47 they will surely kill him. Game over.
Where it all falls down is assuming that the majority of folks will be behind an anti government movement. There's a large percentage of folks who don't like guns. There's a large percentage of folks who prefer the status quo and wouldn't want their world upended in another Civil War over something as stupid as 100 round mags to protect yourself from tyranny. It's a non starter.
So, really, there IS NO POINT in keeping high capacity mags or automatic weapons. Frankly, it's just a phenomenal waste of money.
The point is it is our right. The guns they are talking about are all semi auto not full auto. The government knows if you have full auto because it requires a type 3 license. There is no license needed for a gun unless you carry. In Texas 20 million people have 51 million guns. It doesn't take everyone fighting back. Just a few fighters can have great power. How many politicians would have to be shot to get the idea it isn't safe to be a tyrant . In the revolution about a third were for a new government and about a third wanted to stay with the crown and a third didn't care.

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#850 Jan 10, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>The point is it is our right. The guns they are talking about are all semi auto not full auto. The government knows if you have full auto because it requires a type 3 license. There is no license needed for a gun unless you carry. In Texas 20 million people have 51 million guns. It doesn't take everyone fighting back. Just a few fighters can have great power. How many politicians would have to be shot to get the idea it isn't safe to be a tyrant . In the revolution about a third were for a new government and about a third wanted to stay with the crown and a third didn't care.
Denny, you are not being reasonable. You wouldn't even get a third. Believe it or not, there are gun owners who actually support tighter gun controls. Again, the idea that you need your personal armory just in case you have to take down the government is ludicrous.

And, frankly, it's cowardly. You want to change the government? Stop arguing ridiculous positions and change it from the inside.

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#851 Jan 10, 2013
EraserX wrote:
Someone here will point out the whole Germany/Hitler thing. We can play that game, too. Do you imagine that no one stood up to Hitler? LOL So, assume that someone did. What do you imagine happened to that person?
Even 70 years ago, a gun was not enough to protect yourself from the tyranny of a government. It really is a fool's argument.
Look to Iran. They had the largest modern army in the area yet the government was overthrown by the people. Right now the middle east has tyrants being overthrown. The government doesn't know who has guns. One thing you see at gun shows are water proof tubes sold to bury weapons. The mass shooting have been terrible tragedy but so was a government gone mad at Waco.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#852 Jan 10, 2013
EraserX wrote:
Someone here will point out the whole Germany/Hitler thing. We can play that game, too. Do you imagine that no one stood up to Hitler? LOL So, assume that someone did. What do you imagine happened to that person?
Even 70 years ago, a gun was not enough to protect yourself from the tyranny of a government. It really is a fool's argument.
I have two neighbors - one on each side of my property line.

The guy to the North is an avid gun owner. I don't like to stereotype people, but he fits the typical "NRA" mold. The guy to the South is pretty much a pacifist. No guns, no weapons - he doesn't hunt (but he does own 3 companies). My point is this - if tyranny does strike, and I were to decide to turn my guns on the government, how far would I have to walk to join the anti-government movement? Who's going to be the voice of tyranny? Will it be just like the movies and we'll band together and fight the invading hordes with torches and piuck axes? All the while the next guy over decides to shoot everybody in sight with his AR? The tyrannical government arguement is an invalid issue, IMHO.

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#853 Jan 10, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you walk around town with your AR strapped to your back?
Where do you live? Beruit?
Rochester, NY. High robbery and murder rate. Pistol capacity is limited to 10 rd mags unless you have pre-ban. Open carry is generally an invitaion to problems.
Around town, I would prefer discrete concealed carry with a full 15rd mag for a compact Glock, 2 extra mags. At home, I would like a rifle/carbine with 30rd mags, 12ga shotgun 8rd mag 00 buckshot, both stowed securely yet readily accessible to me, to back up a .45acp pistol I may have on my person.
When I go out, no one knows I am carrying, I believe that is how it should be. It is not something I do lightly, it is a huge responsiblity and I have received training and I practice.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#854 Jan 10, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>Just a few fighters can have great power. How many politicians would have to be shot to get the idea it isn't safe to be a tyrant . In the revolution about a third were for a new government and about a third wanted to stay with the crown and a third didn't care.
I think you terribly underestimate the firepower of the National Guard, US Army, US Marines, US Air Force and the US Navy - none of those would give a ratsass who or what you stood for - they represent the government. I also highly doubt you'd even stand a chance against the local police, S.W.A.T. team and Sheriff's department.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Oregon police dog fired for poor performance 4 min Mitt s Airtight D... 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min CJ Rocker 151,158
True or False Game 7 min SLY WEST 911
The Letter " G " (May '09) 10 min Crazy Jae 4,172
The Letter "S" (Nov '08) 14 min Crazy Jae 9,481
For Him 23 min Crazy Jae 2
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 25 min Crazy Jae 540
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 50 min FTW Forever 335
Passengers Push Russian Airplane Stuck In Ice 53 min Mitt s Airtight D... 13
Bill Cosby 1 hr FTW Forever 260
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 2 hr Interested 7,177

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE