Harrekin
Well-Known Member
We don't have sexy guns, it's just a face-full of buck-shot here.
I'm pretty sure a 5 shell capacity is enough, but why limit it? I'd feel way more confident with a box mag.
How would you control guns?
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
I'm pretty sure a 5 shell capacity is enough, but why limit it? I'd feel way more confident with a box mag.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Never. There is never a time when I need to drive my motorcycle instead of my truck. Motorcycles are dangerous but I'm glad you haven't gone after those too.
Is this going to be the criteria you set for whether or not I'm allowed to own something (mentioned explicitly in the constitution)? whether or not I NEED it ?
We don't need fastfood and it could be a bigger killer than guns. We've decided kids don't need spankings or discipline as much as they need meds. That hasn't worked out so well. Central planners are the most selfish, intolerant people I know. Please go away.
bwest
Well-Known Member
Fully automatics are illegal. An AR-15 is not fully automatic, it is semi-auto. Ar-15's look meaner than they are. Not even good enough for deer hunting. I bought my 11 year old daughter a bigger rifle for Christmas. That's the problem, you all don't know shit about the guns you hate so much. AR's are for small game and target shooting. You can take any rifle. put a plastic folding stock and accessories on it and make it look like a so called "Assault Rifle". P.S. We do grow and hunt most of our food. We are not all pansies like you. And if the day comes, you can be sure i will not use one single bullet to protect the likes of you.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
It is not about the AR 15 or any other weapon. It is about incrementalism.
They tried an assault weapons ban and it did not work. Now they are talking about re-instituting a more severe assault weapons ban regardless of the previous results.
They will start with supposed assault weapons and big clips and work their way down to semi-automatics, rifles and shotguns. Look at the laws regarding smoking in America. Smoking is a legal pastime but you cannot do it almost anywhere anymore.
If you listen to most arguments from the left, banning assault weapons is a *start*.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
But people can make ski's... We should ban mountains!!!
Doer
Well-Known Member
Mental heath problems need the control, not guns. We are supposed to be a society of the gun. You social tinkerers and emotion tamperers, won't get away with this false argument that guns need to be controlled.
The Constitutions say the Right shall not be Abridged.
And the govt has the burden to try to protect us from the mentally ill. The way this is going, the bizarre argument is it's OK for the seriously dangerous to live among us as long as we wipe out gun ownership, ie, take all the guns.
The Constitutions say the Right shall not be Abridged.
And the govt has the burden to try to protect us from the mentally ill. The way this is going, the bizarre argument is it's OK for the seriously dangerous to live among us as long as we wipe out gun ownership, ie, take all the guns.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Mountains are already banned, but Gravity takes it's own sweet time.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
In the 70's the liberals thought it was unfair to have insane asylums and thus fought and passed legislation to make it nearly impossible to commit a person without their consent.
They got what they wanted and now they want the sane people to have their ability to defend themselves stripped away.
All for a better society.. Liberalism at it's best...
Doer
Well-Known Member
29 misses and who are you to say? It is about militia not home protection. Nothing about guns for home protection is in there. It is about a well regulated militia (can shoot, won't cry) going up against Brazilian (or fill in the blank) paratroopers after the EMP.
There was no instant communication in those days, but the Framers realized Unit cells could take the fight to the enemy on our soil, immediately. These invaders or internal insurrectionists won't have muskets. The will have battle rifles.
The entire anti-gun argument depends on a peaceful world where no one wants our resources. That's why we won't have your stupid ideas take hold. You are pushing a civil war, actually.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Walter9999
Well-Known Member
I voted to limit the type of weapon and by that I mean you can have as many "cap and ball" muskets as you want, just like the founders talked about. This bullshit with automatic weapons is not what the founders had in mind when they discussed the right to bare arms. Imo
unohu69
Well-Known Member
^^^ thats so laughable it doesnt even deserve this response....
and dont forget the service fees...
only if they can figure out a way to charge your for it, then tax the hell out of that.
and dont forget the service fees...
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Can you provide some documentation of such?
kelly4
Well-Known Member
What about the treaty with the Indians? In minnesota when the treaties were signed, the Indians could take walleyes out of certain lakes as they pleased. When signed they used handmade canoes and spears. Nowadays they use motorboats and nets. Is that what was meant in the treaties?
Is that what the writers of these documents had in mind? Going by your logic, the indians would have to carve their own canoes and spears and go back to the old ways. Why do you hate the Indians?
Why don't people bitch about ALL outdated documents?