Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find this pretty darned funny, as usual.. Oh, gotta have a couple thousand dollars of high technology to kill some poor grass eating prey animal!
I have an astigmatism, non whiners compensate. No body hunts pronghorn or dear to put food on the table, you dress one of those poor things out and you have less than a trip to costco worth of meat. Management of game through hunting is nonsense. Only about 10% of hunters get their game. and if the goal was herd management Males would be shot, and predators introduced.
Natural rights to have killing weapons? Now that is funny. What would Jesus say?
You boys have piles of NRA claptrap to fall back on, but, it is illogical, not grounded in fact, and just plain, well, claptrap.
America has been caught up in the demise of reason.
I know it is not the be all and end all of sources but here is a nice tidbit about venison (deer meet) from wiki
Venison has enjoyed a rise in popularity in recent years, owing to the meat's lower fat content. It can often be obtained at less cost than beef by hunting (in some areas a doe license can cost as little as a few dollars); many families use it as a one to one substitute for beef, especially in the US mid-south, Midwest, Mississippi Valley and Appalachia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venison
I know this doesn't go along with your pre conceived notions of our civil rights. Not everyone lives in caucasian acre and can shop at whole foods like you seem to believe. Ar15's, along with other rifles, put meet on the table of many families in this country. But I don't even know why I am responding about this again because the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Luke 22:36 Then said he (Jesus) unto them, But now, he hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Your same old argument is tired. My arguments stand on the backs of the founding fathers and this countries’ founding documents. All you go on and on about is hunting and the NRA and act like everyone should be like you and your 112 year old rifle.
Why, because you said you don't need to know what an assault weapon is to comment on it? Sorry, but that is funny.
How do you suggest we go about this, interview those who've murdered others with guns? Too bad that won't happen, as evidenced by this week's carjacking in Orange County with several murdered and in which the shooter took his own life. Can't do it with Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook, or the shooter from VA Tech, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine...
Maybe we can interview Jared Laughner of the Tucson shooting. He might have some insight.
Why are you SO threatened by background checks, registering guns, waiting periods, etc., when you know that you yourself will pass all these restrictions? Is it just an incovenience that you don't want to deal with? If even one of these killers had had to submit to a waiting period, maybe he would've had second thoughts or re-evaluated his plan....think of the lives that might have been saved.
We already are https://www.google.com/search?q=como...w=1066&bih=510
I'm not threatened by background checks, registering guns, waiting periods, etc., because we already have them. I've already been through all that.
Yet the mass killing has continued, that tells me it doesn't work.
No problem with the first part. As for the rest, dumb question! But he wasn't a felon.
I meant the second man, who shot and killed his mother, his neighbor and his neighbor's 4 year old in Baldwin Park. You're right about the first guy who had only a misdemeanor for a restraining order because of alleged domestic violence. However, in the latter example, do you want him with a gun while he's taking care of his toddler? I don't.
Anyone who thinks a gun makes them Master of their own life shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
No, I'm not anti-gun. I am anti-gun nut.
Hmmm, that statement neither specifically applied to a gun, nor about nuts - It was more intended to be about core rights, and the reality of losing one's unalienable rights due to statist/fascist appropriation.
I have no interest in guns per say, just the ability to be free of evil actors and/or totalitarianism.
Funny how ideological agendas are always patently transparent...
You said it.
Twice. In a thread post you were making about guns being restricted. If it quacks like a duck -
Busted...trying to do two things at once.
Go back and read my final edit, unless of course you're already satisfied with your GOTCHA! moment...
Taking away people's Right to property, through Ex post facto law, not too mention going off the deep-end and trying to force things like liability insurance et al. for exercising other Rights, are not everyday occurrences and hopefully no amount of simplistic villainization will distract from this reality.
On second thought, I doubt most really understand or care about the implications, and will just roll over...
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,688,564 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901
First off, I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I subscribe to middle east mysticism, e.g. Jesus...
My morals and ethics are derived from John Locke, the Age of Reason and the Sons of Liberty.
To simplify; I am not a democrat or a republican, I am an American with four (4) families in the Sons of the Revolution Charter (though I doubt you'll understand and/or honor the distinction).
IOW, I am a man without a country...
Moreover, I understand that your thoughts are afflicted by sound bytes you've ingested; and that you lack the frame of reference to understand what Natural Rights are; and what Natural Rights meant in the USofA, so I leave this here for you and the comrades to ponder (or not):
Just wondering..how safe do you think Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas felt, finding themselves without adequate weapons to defend themselves from the murderous Manson family, who violated them without pause, slashing and stabbing over-and-over, no doubt hundreds of times before they died?
And to the point, how safe were the Jews, and other Nazi persecuted peoples, who were legally and totally disarmed in German occupied Europe from 1933-1945?
I find you like that other guy, made arguments and ascribed them to me, then demolished them. That is what we call the Strawman Fallacy. I think it is obvious that you have not read my posts, if you had you would have read this part:
I don't care what kind of weapon you own. I care about intelligent decision making. And, as I have stated many time, an assault weapon is a poor choice of weapon for any civilian purpose I can imagine.
I also think that using a bipoded scoped assault rifle with a magazine to kill a grass eating prey animal is a a very non manly pursuit.
Now, as a poster said some people need a scope because of eye problems, which is utter claptrap. Some people think they need a scope because they cannot stalk.
Natural Rights? That was thought up by some guy who lived in the day when men thought that horse hairs tossed into troughs would turn into worms. Natural Rights has no more moral authority than the flying spaghetti monster.
I am going to go out on a limb and state here that those who espouse natural rights are politically to the right of the Czar of all Russias, before he got shot.
Are you telling me that to you, what some one in your ancestry did a couple of hundred years ago makes a darned hoot of a difference today?
You are parroting the NRA, instead of reflecting that someone who thinks that owning assault rifles is evidence of poor decision making may not be against an armed populace, you merely parrot NRA claptrap, "either you are for unrestricted poor decision making, or you are a commie pinko anti gun liberal".
I meant the second man, who shot and killed his mother, his neighbor and his neighbor's 4 year old in Baldwin Park. You're right about the first guy who had only a misdemeanor for a restraining order because of alleged domestic violence. However, in the latter example, do you want him with a gun while he's taking care of his toddler? I don't.
Do you really have to ask?
Discounting those who jump on the bandwagon just because there's a bandwagon there to jump on and it makes them feel progressive and those whom most of us would consider "anti-gun nuts," I doubt that anyone wants reasonable control more than responsible gun owners, sports shooters and hobbyists. The aberrations (pro-gun nuts) make all of us look bad.
There are plenty of controls already on the books but government at many levels has failed to fund and implement or enforce them. Making a big noise in the aftermath of true tragedy takes the focus off their failings, or worse, their complicity like, say, Fast and Furious, and directs it on those of us who own guns and have never misused or commited a crime with one. Clever, huh? Smoke and mirrors! Second only to money it's the mother's milk of politics.
I find you like that other guy, made arguments and ascribed them to me, then demolished them. That is what we call the Strawman Fallacy. I think it is obvious that you have not read my posts, if you had you would have read this part:
I don't care what kind of weapon you own. I care about intelligent decision making. And, as I have stated many time, an assault weapon is a poor choice of weapon for any civilian purpose I can imagine.
I also think that using a bipoded scoped assault rifle with a magazine to kill a grass eating prey animal is a a very non manly pursuit.
Now, as a poster said some people need a scope because of eye problems, which is utter claptrap. Some people think they need a scope because they cannot stalk.
Natural Rights? That was thought up by some guy who lived in the day when men thought that horse hairs tossed into troughs would turn into worms. Natural Rights has no more moral authority than the flying spaghetti monster.
I am going to go out on a limb and state here that those who espouse natural rights are politically to the right of the Czar of all Russias, before he got shot.
Are you telling me that to you, what some one in your ancestry did a couple of hundred years ago makes a darned hoot of a difference today?
You are parroting the NRA, instead of reflecting that someone who thinks that owning assault rifles is evidence of poor decision making may not be against an armed populace, you merely parrot NRA claptrap, "either you are for unrestricted poor decision making, or you are a commie pinko anti gun liberal".
So lets take a different approach, what is so bad about a semi automatic rifle?
Why must the "optimum tool" be used?
What if someone cannot afford many different types of guns so they can't have optimum guns for every situation?
Is shooting prey animals for food different than shooting preditor animals for food?
Why is an ar15 bad for self defense?
What is wrong with using a scope?
What is wrong with a bi pod?
Do you think shooting accurately is important?
Do you think it is better to gut shot an animal than to get a clean kill?
And natural rights transcend government, that is the whole point. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if every humans right, even before this country was created. Our founding documents just memorialized it. Unless you believe we have a bunch of privileges in this country that the government lets us have?
Thanks! for confirming my suspicions of your wet dreams to totally rescind the social contract, and for confirming my already low outlook for the long-term in this formerly great nation...I will prepare accordingly
It is now painfully obvious (to all but the braindead) that following the effective demonization of seat belts, drunk driving, tobacco smoking and BIG gulps, the New New OfficialAgitprop has been reprogrammed and designated to focus on Gun Owners.
Gun Owners = Smokers and Drunk Drivers
Quote:
All Nomenklatura and Commissar Politik please note the change in venue, instructions for payroll submission will follow.
Best of luck with the agenda, hope you're ready for the event horizon.
Historical reference -- Suspension of Natural Law and the Rise of the Equity (Corporate) and Admiralty (Law of the High Seas/Martial Law) Empire:
Quote:
93d Congress
SENATE
Report No. 93-549
1st Session
EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
(In case you were unaware, Emergency Powers were never rescinded, and the the USCON is still legally suspended)
Well some people just have a narrow focus and maybe are just a bit selfish and figure on the surface if it doesn't affect me, go ahead and take their rights. But then if that is the stepping stone to infringing on their rights, then you will hear them screaming bloody murder and want to rally the troops to support their cause-the same troops they threw under the bus the first time around.
There are no "rights" to own killing machines any more than there are "rights" to conduct drag races on your residential streets.
Gun "rights" are a fabrication....absolutely nothing more the opinions of men committed to blocking our emergence from the dark ages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
