Ban ARs

[lmasdlkjasdoiajusdlknm]

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

[Balmvng]

Tadpole Jackson

Lord Balmung of Azure Sky

Tadpole Jackson

Lord Balmung of Azure Sky

Why do you assume all "lefties" want to ban guns? My father's an Obama-bot, is a former life member of the NRA, and has an extensive gun collection.

how do you become a FORMER life member? isn't the whole point of a life membership that it's for life.

You'd mail them a letter requesting to have your membership removed as well as sending back your membership card.

and the point of this is...?

That's how you leave the NRA, even if you're a life member, thus becoming a former life member, as you asked.

Yes, the point of life membership is to be a member for life. But my father, for instance, joined the NRA before Wayne LaPierre became Vice President and CEO, and has gotten tired of reading in the magazines the "Obama hasn't taken our guns yet, BUT HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE IF REELECTED!" paranoia, and quit.

[Noogie]

Testament of Death

Noogie

Testament of Death

Noogie

My housemate just bought a gunsafe. Shut the ******** up.

Gun safes are worthless if you intend on using a gun for home defense. I know a couple of people who really wished they hadn't kept their guns in one when their house was broken into. They weren't hurt, but that's because they managed to get out of the house and let the robbers have their pick of things before the police got there. In one case, the intruder was indeed armed, but it turned out later that his gun was jammed and he hadn't known it. The other time, all the guy had was a knife

It's the law where we live. Its intention is to stop people getting to it that shouldn't. The gun isn't for home defence, we have police for that kind of thing.

Where I'm from, we think it's better to be able to protect ourselves first, instead of relying on others to protect us first The police can't always be there, what do you do if there are none around?

There's not many guns around to worry about either. That said, if I used excessive force when dealing with an intruder, chances are I'd be charged, as I'm fairly certain Australian law only allows "reasonable defensive measures" which I presume to mean like-for-like weapons.

[zosh]

AnarchoPhiliac

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

have you ever shot a semi automatic rifle? They are prettttty fun. I guess some people only have that experience in front of a tv screen lol I actually just got back from the range. One of my buddies just got a Daniel's Defense AR, we helped him get it sighted in. I was able to shoot golf balls with my Savage .223 at 100 yards. That's pretty dang good if I say so myself.

[Michael Noire]

Lord Balmung of Azure Sky

Why do you assume all "lefties" want to ban guns? My father's an Obama-bot, is a former life member of the NRA, and has an extensive gun collection.

left means centralized government, as it tends toward fascism and communism. In the historical examples of these government institutions, total gun confiscation was one of the most popular policies, prior to another popular policy: genocide. However, there has been for many years a false dichotomy of left right, as illustrated in this picture:
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22700000/Left-vs-Right-US-Political-Spectrum-us-republican-party-22707903-1415-1022.jpg
In this dichotomy, Fascism ends up in the extreme Right Wing. That's intended to confuse people into believing the opposite of Hitler is Communism. Gee, I wonder who would want that?

the basic gist of it however, of any correct table, is Anarchy is on the farthest right point. As you increase government for whatever reason, such as safety, slavery, prison camps, positive rights, big military, free cellphones, or whatever, you get further and further to the left.

it's about the argument of right to something vs. right from something.

[Wendigo]

Michael Noire

In this dichotomy, Fascism ends up in the extreme Right Wing. That's intended to confuse people into believing the opposite of Hitler is Communism. Gee, I wonder who would want that?

Proclamation to the German Nation, Feb 1, 1933

All about us the warning signs of this collapse are apparent. Communism with its method of madness is making a powerful and insidious attack upon our dismayed and shattered nation. It seeks to poison and disrupt in order to hurl us into an epoch of chaos.... This negative, destroying spirit spared nothing of all that is highest and most valuable. Beginning with the family, it has undermined the very foundations of morality and faith and scoffs at culture and business, nation and Fatherland, justice and honor. Fourteen years of Marxism have ruined Germany; one year of bolshevism would destroy her. The richest and fairest territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins. Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag of destruction had been hoisted. The thousands of wounded, the hundreds of dead which this inner strife has already cost Germany should be a warning of the storm which would come....

In those hours when our hearts were troubled about the life and the future of the German nation, the aged leader of the World War appealed to us. He called to those of us in nationalist parties and leagues to struggle under him once more, in unity and loyalty, for the salvation of the German nation. This time the front lines are at home. The venerable Reichsprasident has allied himself with us in this noble endeavor. And as leaders of the nation and the national Government we vow to God, to our conscience, and to our people that we will faithfully and resolutely fulfill the task conferred upon us.

Hitler, duh

[Pipebracket]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[Balmvng]

Michael Noire

Lord Balmung of Azure Sky

Why do you assume all "lefties" want to ban guns? My father's an Obama-bot, is a former life member of the NRA, and has an extensive gun collection.

left means centralized government, as it tends toward fascism and communism.

That's where I lost interest.

[eiji_panda13]

In the event that someone really intends to kill someone else, they will not left a ban on certain firearms stop them.

It's not like people don't know how to kill each other without using firearms.

They'll just start using other things like knives or poison or bombs or baseball bats

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

AnarchoPhiliac

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

They're semi-automatic weapons, not assault weapons. As has been pointed out numerous times, it is a politically coined phrase to incite fear in the minds of the uninformed about the firearms in general.

[Lucem Pristinam]

Old Blue Collar Joe

AnarchoPhiliac

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

They're semi-automatic weapons, not assault weapons. As has been pointed out numerous times, it is a politically coined phrase to incite fear in the minds of the uninformed about the firearms in general.

Hold on Joe, they did use the term Assault Rifle so the terminoligy is correct.

And to throw my two cents in here, what of "Shall not be infringed" don't people understand. Granted, I can understand the need for a background check (need to make sure law-abiding citizens aren't actually evil super villains living inside hollowed out volcanoes), But the Second Amendment can't be any clearer. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whether it be a slingshot, a sword, or an RPG we as the people have the right to keep arms as we see fit.

Sure, some of the stuff is not necessary, but at same time Facebook is not necessary. Neither is Gaia...or our cell phones...or ipods....or computers....

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

--Sky Kid Tai--

Old Blue Collar Joe

AnarchoPhiliac

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

They're semi-automatic weapons, not assault weapons. As has been pointed out numerous times, it is a politically coined phrase to incite fear in the minds of the uninformed about the firearms in general.

Hold on Joe, they did use the term Assault Rifle so the terminoligy is correct.

And to throw my two cents in here, what of "Shall not be infringed" don't people understand. Granted, I can understand the need for a background check (need to make sure law-abiding citizens aren't actually evil super villains living inside hollowed out volcanoes), But the Second Amendment can't be any clearer. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whether it be a slingshot, a sword, or an RPG we as the people have the right to keep arms as we see fit.

Sure, some of the stuff is not necessary, but at same time Facebook is not necessary. Neither is Gaia...or our cell phones...or ipods....or computers....

Assault weapons are politically termed phrases. If they were to use the actual military definition no civilian would own one, since they aren't the semi autos.
As for the facebook, gaia, cell phone or ipod/computer comment? Where are they covered under the constitution?
I have no issue with background checks. I have big issues with bans.

[Lucem Pristinam]

Old Blue Collar Joe

--Sky Kid Tai--

Old Blue Collar Joe

AnarchoPhiliac

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

They're semi-automatic weapons, not assault weapons. As has been pointed out numerous times, it is a politically coined phrase to incite fear in the minds of the uninformed about the firearms in general.

Hold on Joe, they did use the term Assault Rifle so the terminoligy is correct.

And to throw my two cents in here, what of "Shall not be infringed" don't people understand. Granted, I can understand the need for a background check (need to make sure law-abiding citizens aren't actually evil super villains living inside hollowed out volcanoes), But the Second Amendment can't be any clearer. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whether it be a slingshot, a sword, or an RPG we as the people have the right to keep arms as we see fit.

Sure, some of the stuff is not necessary, but at same time Facebook is not necessary. Neither is Gaia...or our cell phones...or ipods....or computers....

Assault weapons are politically termed phrases. If they were to use the actual military definition no civilian would own one, since they aren't the semi autos.
As for the facebook, gaia, cell phone or ipod/computer comment? Where are they covered under the constitution?
I have no issue with background checks. I have big issues with bans.

The facebook/ipod comment was simply to illustrate my point. They are not needed, but these are things we desire.

I'll try this from a different angle. Remember how just in the past year the city of New York I'll ball the sale of sugary drinks bigger than 16 ounces? Or maybe how schools are serving smaller and smaller lunch portions? (My family personally is up in arms over the smaller food portions school) True, we don't need more food. But we WANT it. That's the beautiful thing about living in what is supposed to be "the land of the free". If we desire more of something, we can go get it.

To the protection under the Constitution comment; The beautiful thing about the U.S. Constitution (Particularly our Bill of Rights [Amendments 1-10]) is that it highlights what government CAN'T do.

But let's be honest here; do you think out current so-called "leaders" really care about what they're not supposed to do?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

--Sky Kid Tai--

Old Blue Collar Joe

--Sky Kid Tai--

Old Blue Collar Joe

AnarchoPhiliac

I really do not see the point in owning assault rifles, unless if you are paranoid as ********, though at that point you really need mental help.

They're semi-automatic weapons, not assault weapons. As has been pointed out numerous times, it is a politically coined phrase to incite fear in the minds of the uninformed about the firearms in general.

Hold on Joe, they did use the term Assault Rifle so the terminoligy is correct.

And to throw my two cents in here, what of "Shall not be infringed" don't people understand. Granted, I can understand the need for a background check (need to make sure law-abiding citizens aren't actually evil super villains living inside hollowed out volcanoes), But the Second Amendment can't be any clearer. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whether it be a slingshot, a sword, or an RPG we as the people have the right to keep arms as we see fit.

Sure, some of the stuff is not necessary, but at same time Facebook is not necessary. Neither is Gaia...or our cell phones...or ipods....or computers....

Assault weapons are politically termed phrases. If they were to use the actual military definition no civilian would own one, since they aren't the semi autos.
As for the facebook, gaia, cell phone or ipod/computer comment? Where are they covered under the constitution?
I have no issue with background checks. I have big issues with bans.

The facebook/ipod comment was simply to illustrate my point. They are not needed, but these are things we desire.

I'll try this from a different angle. Remember how just in the past year the city of New York I'll ball the sale of sugary drinks bigger than 16 ounces? Or maybe how schools are serving smaller and smaller lunch portions? (My family personally is up in arms over the smaller food portions school) True, we don't need more food. But we WANT it. That's the beautiful thing about living in what is supposed to be "the land of the free". If we desire more of something, we can go get it.

To the protection under the Constitution comment; The beautiful thing about the U.S. Constitution (Particularly our Bill of Rights [Amendments 1-10]) is that it highlights what government CAN'T do.

But let's be honest here; do you think out current so-called "leaders" really care about what they're not supposed to do?

All those ******** care about is taking away more of our rights so they can establish their dictatorship with the least hassle. And that comment is at BOTH sides, not one.

[Sen Natsu]

Obviously we should take people's guns away and issue them more hands, feet and fists.