Here it comes - gun control!!!

Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Ryan,

So, you think we should do congress British style? Where if another disagrees with your proposed topic, you handle them with some MMA action?
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
i got a no 1 mk 3, all stock, i refinished the wood (natural oak, oiled with linseed) and tuned up the trigger. thats it.

i like it's heft, the bayonet lug is super handy (i always fix bayonets before hunting piggies just in case) i like having detachable mags, and a 10 round box is groovy for popping off,, even if i dont need that many for hunting.

a good enfeild with a chrome lined bore doesnt need any alterations, and sporterizing them is heresy in my book.

my rifle is nearly 100 years old, it doesnt need modifications to make it look more modern, and being heavy just reduces the felt recoil of my hot loads.

i wouldnt alter my grandpappy's rifle or pistol either. im a traditionalist and a conservative in all things. except for my Bosco. im liberal as fuck with the honey and cinnamon.
Click to expand...
I love my no4 mk1, but I wouldn't mind finding one of those jungle carbines. Seems like it would make a bitchin brush gun. Ah, now I see why you were complaining about bayonet prices, I have the spike for mine. You don't find the sight on you enfield to be a bit wanting? It seems like having that small slot set so far forward would not be the best for a good sight picture.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
so... the problem with the media is... capitalism and free enterprise?
Click to expand...
I think that is exactly it. Our Constitution and the Information Age is an unforeseen juxaposition. But, this tangle is not an un-intended consequence of a free press, seems to me. It will sort itself out. That's the beauty of it. So far, it is a self righting system. If info-overflow doesn't sink us, we will be fine. I don't think America is broken and I don't think the Press is out of control. :) The were never controlled or in control of themselves. The Press, even in the gold camps of Old California, still have to follow, report on and eventually bow to money. Nothing has changed.

Instant Info is what changed. Instant Lies are not far behind. Marketing. But, then the Press reveals the Damn Lies, to bow to money. And so it goes.

The alternatives are so much worse, aren't they? Not the social theories, but the actual systems that have been tried without a "free" press, are worse.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
ALSO, learned today that in Cali, i can build my own AR with an 80% lower and no registration is required. A little skilled labor (cnc) is involved, but i think i'm wanting to build one or three.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
I love my no4 mk1, but I wouldn't mind finding one of those jungle carbines. Seems like it would make a bitchin brush gun. Ah, now I see why you were complaining about bayonet prices, I have the spike for mine. You don't find the sight on you enfield to be a bit wanting? It seems like having that small slot set so far forward would not be the best for a good sight picture.
Click to expand...
it's not so bad, i learned to shoot on guns with no sights or minimal ones. once youre used to it, it works just fune.

i was in my 30's before i started using rifles with scopes or peep sights.
the "jungle carbines" are usually hacked up no4's.

i enjoy my enfeild and it serves me well, but next i reckon ill be getting a kalashnikov in 7.62.39, im dying to see how far i can push the ballistics in that cartridge and rifle.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
it's not so bad, i learned to shoot on guns with no sights or minimal ones. once youre used to it, it works just fune.

i was in my 30's before i started using rifles with scopes or peep sights.
the "jungle carbines" are usually hacked up no4's.

i enjoy my enfeild and it serves me well, but next i reckon ill be getting a kalashnikov in 7.62.39, im dying to see how far i can push the ballistics in that cartridge and rifle.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a real jungle carbine would cost me a leg and my firstborn son at a later date. I'd settle for a chopped down no4, I just can't bring myself to mess with mine like that.
 
ink the world

ink the world

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
my reading comprehension is fine, you keep squeaking about not banning guns, but then you squawk about requiring licenses and background check for permission to buy a gun.

how hard is it for you to imagine a tightening of the criteria (like california does) where the ACCUSATION of domestic violence is a disqualifier, even just a loud argument with the wife can get you barred from gun ownership for life. or maybe holding certain views might be sufficient to be denied the privilege? you're so sure your rights will not be infringed you will submit everyone else to the inquisition. must be grand to be so perfect.

you fail to understand the simple fact, that the army is an illegal organization, and instead sling ad hominems and change the subject.
you declared that citizens dont need the "firepower" of an AR or AK, anyone would conclude that you mean you dont mind if they are banned. you hint at yuor opinion then feign being insulted when somebody calles you a lefty gun banner.
well you are a lefty gun banner. you pretend to support the second amendment, while calling everyone else who DOES in fact support the second amendment a "wingnut".

and i did read what you posted and concluded your comments on not wanting gun bans was a LIE. admitting you want guns banned alienates those you hope to sway to your side for "reasonable" measures to "filter" who can own guns. where i come from thats infringement on the second amendment's provisions.
Click to expand...
Fuck off, calling me a liar is an insult of the highest order. Stop putting words in my mouth you longwinded prepper nutbag. Where I come from you'd get your ass handed to you for it.

People like you seem to enjoy comparing guns to cars. So let's go with that.
You need to prove your somewhat competent in handling that car before you can drive it, don't you?

So we can license car drivers but not gun owners? Foolish
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
ink the world said:
Fuck off, calling me a liar is an insult of the highest order. Stop putting words in my mouth you longwinded prepper nutbag. Where I come from you'd get your ass handed to you for it.

People like you seem to enjoy comparing guns to cars. So let's go with that.
You need to prove your somewhat competent in handling that car before you can drive it, don't you?

So we can license car drivers but not gun owners? Foolish
Click to expand...
A drivers license violates constitutional law.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by horse drawn carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city
can prohibit or permit at will, but a common
Right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith , 154 SE 579

A license is permitting at will who can drive. It says clearly you cannot do such. Just because you make a law doesn't make it right. Modern society only looks the other way. If prohibition had happened today, there would've been no amendment banning alcohol. Back then they knew to ban drugs required an amendment, not something simple like the controlled substances act and DEA.

If the government can take away our right to travel by defining an automobile as a vehicle for commerce, since the constitution can regulate commerce.

Obamacare is considered a commerce tax. Marijuana is a commerce tax. Automobiles are a commerce tax. Guns are a commerce tax.

That's why government regulates anything, tax revenue. Any other regulations are to prevent you from violating not paying taxes. Government doesn't give a shit about you. They won't ban guns to help save lives, they do it so you won't have means to tax dodge.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
A drivers license violates constitutional law.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by horse drawn carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city
can prohibit or permit at will, but a common
Right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith , 154 SE 579

A license is permitting at will who can drive. It says clearly you cannot do such. Just because you make a law doesn't make it right. Modern society only looks the other way. If prohibition had happened today, there would've been no amendment banning alcohol. Back then they knew to ban drugs required an amendment, not something simple like the controlled substances act and DEA.

If the government can take away our right to travel by defining an automobile as a vehicle for commerce, since the constitution can regulate commerce.

Obamacare is considered a commerce tax. Marijuana is a commerce tax. Automobiles are a commerce tax. Guns are a commerce tax.

That's why government regulates anything, tax revenue. Any other regulations are to prevent you from violating not paying taxes. Government doesn't give a shit about you. They won't ban guns to help save lives, they do it so you won't have means to tax dodge.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, just because you feel that this is what the founders meant 300 years ago (when they could never envision a car), does that make it a good idea today? Do you think having a half blind 95 year old grandma driving 80mph down the expressway is safe? Do you posses even an ounce of common sense?

It seems to be in short supply around here.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Jesus Christ, just because you feel that this is what the founders meant 300 years ago (when they could never envision a car), does that make it a good idea today? Do you think having a half blind 95 year old grandma driving 80mph down the expressway is safe? Do you posses even an ounce of common sense?

It seems to be in short supply around here.
Click to expand...
Why do you always start every argument with a Strawman? Canna never said anything about giving blind 85 year old grandmas a license to drive. Why do you bring it up like that's the crux of his argument?

Possessing an ounce of common sense? Do you posses a gram of it?
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Why do you always start every argument with a Strawman? Canna never said anything about giving blind 85 year old grandmas a license to drive. Why do you bring it up like that's the crux of his argument?

Possessing an ounce of common sense? Do you posses a gram of it?
Click to expand...
The "crux of his argument" is that government should not be able to issue a drivers licenses, and decide who can drive and who can't.

Do I have to explain everything to you?

We've already established that you're careless and don't give a shit about anyone else, so it stands to reason that you'd be a bit of a dumb-dumb too.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Jesus Christ, just because you feel that this is what the founders meant 300 years ago (when they could never envision a car), does that make it a good idea today? Do you think having a half blind 95 year old grandma driving 80mph down the expressway is safe? Do you posses even an ounce of common sense?

It seems to be in short supply around here.
Click to expand...
could never envision a car.

leonardo davinci envisioned horselss carriages, flying machines etc etc etc, fuck you think your so superior, and everyone born before1980 is some benighted fool who couldnt imagine anything as revolutionary as an iPhone, well guess what champ, dick tracy had a video phone in his watch in the 1940's.

self loading clip fed crossbows were nothing new, they were the chinese infantry's standard arms from around 200ad. yes, TWO HUNDRED AD, thats not a typo, and they were quite effective at killing, the zhuge crossbow was shit for hunting though, and it never caught on in europe but washington and jefferson felt no need to ban these MURDERBOWS despite their high capacity magazines (as much as 20 bolts in a magazine!) and ease of operation, and their uselessness outside war, and mankilling. GW TJ and their BFF alexander hamilton didnt feel the need to ban daggers either and yet, daggers are banned throughout the US as "deadly MURDERKNIVES" only used to MURDERDEATHKILL innocent citizens. why would these cats not ban MURDERKNIVES? werent they Thinking Of The Children??? because they knew those weapons were used for defense of life and liberty. same with swords, cutlasses cannons, muskets rifles grenades, and all the other implements of the soldier, because WE are the nation's army. did you know that the Rough Riders (Theodore Roosevelt's regiment in the spanish american war, 1898) were raised as volunteers PRIVATELY, armed PRIVATELY equipped with machineguns PRIVATELY and then presented as a full regiment PRIVATELY until they were sworn and bound to the US dept of war before shipping out to cuba? no, you didnt know that, cuz we always had a standing army right? WRONG! constitutionally we STILL dont have a satnding army, we have a "militia" with shitty low bid issued guns.

jesus Christ indeed. youre a thickwitted little shit who thinks history started with your first nocturnal emission. catch a clue lil shaver, theres a lot of shit that went on before you realized your pecker was more than just something to tug on in your nappy.

i propose that it is unsafe for everone else for you to opine on the interwebsm since your thoughts are ill formed, and poorly engineered perhaps we should take away your interweb license or your free speech license until you can see over the dashboard or your testicles finally descend.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
The "crux of his argument" is that government should not be able to issue a drivers licenses, and decide who can drive and who can't.

Do I have to explain everything to you?

We've already established that you're careless and don't give a shit about anyone else, so it stands to reason that you'd be a bit of a dumb-dumb too.
Click to expand...
I see you have put up yet another strawman argument combined with some Ad hominem. Hey you're doing great so far. You will be able to debate 3rd graders in only a week or two.

The government purchased 1.6 Billion hollow Point Rounds for the DHS, what do you suppose they got those for? I mean Hollow points are banned by the Geneva convention so that cannot be used anywhere in war. Why would the DHS need that much ammo?

I am careless? Why is that?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
A drivers license violates constitutional law.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by horse drawn carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city
can prohibit or permit at will, but a common
Right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith , 154 SE 579

A license is permitting at will who can drive. It says clearly you cannot do such. Just because you make a law doesn't make it right. Modern society only looks the other way. If prohibition had happened today, there would've been no amendment banning alcohol. Back then they knew to ban drugs required an amendment, not something simple like the controlled substances act and DEA.

If the government can take away our right to travel by defining an automobile as a vehicle for commerce, since the constitution can regulate commerce.

Obamacare is considered a commerce tax. Marijuana is a commerce tax. Automobiles are a commerce tax. Guns are a commerce tax.

That's why government regulates anything, tax revenue. Any other regulations are to prevent you from violating not paying taxes. Government doesn't give a shit about you. They won't ban guns to help save lives, they do it so you won't have means to tax dodge.
Click to expand...
I found something that goes on and on in this vein. I was referencing your case and found a lot of examples of settled Law about the Right to be on the Roads.
http://yhvh.name/MISSION_AID/RIGHT_TO_DRIVE_NO_LICENSE.pdf

So, I don't understand how every state still defines it as a privileged. It must be this phrase, from your citing, though the concept is throughout all these points of Law.

"Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the
public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither
interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe
conduct."

I can only say that it must be a Right only after adulthood and only until we fuck up. :) And the States rightly assume everyone will screw it up at some point.

I agree that all regs are for taxes. The private ownership of bridges and the bit about denying access on rural roads, is what got he govt involved for revenue. Public bridges, public roads, govt tolls.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
The "crux of his argument" is that government should not be able to issue a drivers licenses, and decide who can drive and who can't.

Do I have to explain everything to you?

We've already established that you're careless and don't give a shit about anyone else, so it stands to reason that you'd be a bit of a dumb-dumb too.
Click to expand...
"crux of his argument" is that government should not be able. Should not??? Do I have to explain everything. What kind of argument is it about what the govt should or should not do? We have the Supreme Court for that.

We have established???? Come on, drop the insults, you may make more sense. You don't know us well enough to wave the hands and try to demean someone's character. You mean he might not give a shit about you and your sillyness. That's probably correct. He may be a loving and caring person for all you know. You are just taking a stoner forum, personally. Please make a note of it. :)

And my observation is that dumb-dumb people are pretty sweet natured and do care about others.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
could never envision a car.

leonardo davinci envisioned horselss carriages, flying machines etc etc etc, fuck you think your so superior, and everyone born before1980 is some benighted fool who couldnt imagine anything as revolutionary as an iPhone, well guess what champ, dick tracy had a video phone in his watch in the 1940's.

self loading clip fed crossbows were nothing new, they were the chinese infantry's standard arms from around 200ad. yes, TWO HUNDRED AD, thats not a typo, and they were quite effective at killing, the zhuge crossbow was shit for hunting though, and it never caught on in europe but washington and jefferson felt no need to ban these MURDERBOWS despite their high capacity magazines (as much as 20 bolts in a magazine!) and ease of operation, and their uselessness outside war, and mankilling. GW TJ and their BFF alexander hamilton didnt feel the need to ban daggers either and yet, daggers are banned throughout the US as "deadly MURDERKNIVES" only used to MURDERDEATHKILL innocent citizens. why would these cats not ban MURDERKNIVES? werent they Thinking Of The Children??? because they knew those weapons were used for defense of life and liberty. same with swords, cutlasses cannons, muskets rifles grenades, and all the other implements of the soldier, because WE are the nation's army. did you know that the Rough Riders (Theodore Roosevelt's regiment in the spanish american war, 1898) were raised as volunteers PRIVATELY, armed PRIVATELY equipped with machineguns PRIVATELY and then presented as a full regiment PRIVATELY until they were sworn and bound to the US dept of war before shipping out to cuba? no, you didnt know that, cuz we always had a standing army right? WRONG! constitutionally we STILL dont have a satnding army, we have a "militia" with shitty low bid issued guns.

jesus Christ indeed. youre a thickwitted little shit who thinks history started with your first nocturnal emission. catch a clue lil shaver, theres a lot of shit that went on before you realized your pecker was more than just something to tug on in your nappy.

i propose that it is unsafe for everone else for you to opine on the interwebsm since your thoughts are ill formed, and poorly engineered perhaps we should take away your interweb license or your free speech license until you can see over the dashboard or your testicles finally descend.
Click to expand...

More long winded bullshit from the good Dr. You seem to know a lot about me having never met me. Do you normally make stuff up about people you haven't met, or only when you have nothing else to pull out of your ass?

"you think YOUR so superior"

Slow down, gather your thoughts, and keep your diatribes to a paragraph or less and you might catch those.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
More long winded bullshit from the good Dr. You seem to know a lot about me having never met me. Do you normally make stuff up about people you haven't met, or only when you have nothing else to pull out of your ass?

"you think YOUR so superior"

Slow down, gather your thoughts, and keep your diatribes to a paragraph or less and you might catch those.
Click to expand...
We only know what you provide. BTW, it is a contraction. YOU'RE. Just a typo I'm sure. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top