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.
Well that simply isn't true. We were there on day one, and people were walking out with assault weapons and could not have had any background checks, they obviously weren't required then (from 10 to 15 years ago), and I believe they are called "gun show loopholes" for a reason. I don't disagree with your assessment of Janet Reno. But that doesn't negate the fact he killed his own family by setting that fire, or it happened accidentally and they couldn't get out in time. I did, in fact watch the whole thing. He was still a militia type nutcase with military grade weapons, he most likely bought at gun shows. Which was the topic. As to FBI statistics, it doesn't matter that assault rifles are on the bottom of a list or in the middle of a list, no one but the military has any reason to own one, and certainly not lots of them. They don't shoot rabbits or deer, they aren't used as protection from intruders, they kill people, they have no other reason to be built, they have only one purpose, killing people. No one has the right, 2nd amendment or not, to have a weapon of any kind, designed for the specific purpose of killing and murdering. There are no legitimate reasons for the general citizenry to own assault weapons of any kind, ever, and no amount of NRA speak will change that. Once that ridiculous argument is over, we can then begin to talk about stopping other types of gun violence...hand guns and the like.
have to agree that no one other than military needs machine guns and automatic weaponry that shoots many, many , many bullets in a matter of a few seconds. these are not for deer hunting or home protection. they are for showing off your "macho".
not my question and I am coming into the thread late. however criminals normally don't do their crimes at gun shows. even the clean cut older types. as far as perception, you know the types of people you are comfortable with at any event.
Timothy mcveigh couldn't have been more clean cut, so it's possible to fool anyone.
Well that simply isn't true. We were there on day one, and people were walking out with assault weapons and could not have had any background checks, they obviously weren't required then (from 10 to 15 years ago), and I believe they are called "gun show loopholes" for a reason. I don't disagree with your assessment of Janet Reno. But that doesn't negate the fact he killed his own family by setting that fire, or it happened accidentally and they couldn't get out in time. I did, in fact watch the whole thing. He was still a militia type nutcase with military grade weapons, he most likely bought at gun shows. Which was the topic. As to FBI statistics, it doesn't matter that assault rifles are on the bottom of a list or in the middle of a list, no one but the military has any reason to own one, and certainly not lots of them. They don't shoot rabbits or deer, they aren't used as protection from intruders, they kill people, they have no other reason to be built, they have only one purpose, killing people. No one has the right, 2nd amendment or not, to have a weapon of any kind, designed for the specific purpose of killing and murdering. There are no legitimate reasons for the general citizenry to own assault weapons of any kind, ever, and no amount of NRA speak will change that. Once that ridiculous argument is over, we can then begin to talk about stopping other types of gun violence...hand guns and the like.
First of all, none of the rifles you saw that day were military grade rifle not one was fully automatic or select fire. NOT ONE. The assertion that they have no other purpose but to kill people is also false. I own one and use it on my place to kill ferel pigs, which where I live are basically a rodent. It is the ideal firearm for this purpose. A so called assault rifle, is basically no different from a semi automatic hunting rifle. The only difference is it looks different. As far as function, it is less lethal than my .308 Winchester model 70 hunting rifle.
Incidentally, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member or supporter of the NRA. You may live in a house with guns, but your knowledge of them is extremely limited. It is obvious. Do a little homework.
You are never going to stop violence with a gun or knife or any other instrument. Men have been finding better ways of killing one another since the advent of the club and rock. People misused them too in their time. If you want to see a ridiculous argument,, go back and look at what you have posted after you educate yourself..
have to agree that no one other than military needs machine guns and automatic weaponry that shoots many, many , many bullets in a matter of a few seconds. these are not for deer hunting or home protection. they are for showing off your "macho".
None of the weapons you are talking about are machine guns. None of them are fully automatic or even select fire. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic before posting.
As to FBI statistics, it doesn't matter that assault rifles are on the bottom of a list or in the middle of a list, no one but the military has any reason to own one, and certainly not lots of them. They don't shoot rabbits or deer, they aren't used as protection from intruders, they kill people, they have no other reason to be built, they have only one purpose, killing people. No one has the right, 2nd amendment or not, to have a weapon of any kind, designed for the specific purpose of killing and murdering. There are no legitimate reasons for the general citizenry to own assault weapons of any kind, ever, and no amount of NRA speak will change that. Once that ridiculous argument is over, we can then begin to talk about stopping other types of gun violence...hand guns and the like.
it seems to me that you like to decide for others, based on appearance alone, what is OK and not-OK.
to me, the prohibition and availability of *anything* should be based upon a more thorough consideration and contemplations than mere appearance of an item....
Funny how my husband thought the same thing and wanted to leave. He was highly disappointed, although not much scares him. Maybe I was grossed out, more than scared. At any rate, I wouldn't hang out with this sort of people in my lifestyle under any circumstances, anyway.
Sooooo,,, If you wouldn't hang out with them, they didn't have as much right to be there as you did? Are they somehow less human than you?
Oh yeah, and koresch had enough food and supplies and ammunition to hold out for more than 6 months. I don't expect the FBI under anyone's watch to spend 6 months in a ridiculous waiting game.
Koresch and his leaders went into the town of Waco on a regular basis... You watched it on television, I live there... They were constantly in town. Nobody had to wait six months. They didn't have to wait six days...
it seems to me that you like to decide for others, based on appearance alone, what is OK and not-OK.
to me, the prohibition and availability of *anything* should be based upon a more thorough consideration and contemplations than mere appearance of an item....
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
Sooooo,,, If you wouldn't hang out with them, they didn't have as much right to be there as you did? Are they somehow less human than you?
minorities are judged on their appearance all the time. how is that fair?
not all men wearing leathers, tattoos are criminals, nor is every homeless person have mental problems. I think that is the point. however not all these people should have access to guns and most certainly not military grade weapons and lets add body armor like the shooter in Oregon wore.
minorities are judged on their appearance all the time. how is that fair?
not all men wearing leathers, tattoos are criminals, nor is every homeless person have mental problems. I think that is the point. however not all these people should have access to guns and most certainly not military grade weapons and lets add body armor like the shooter in Oregon wore.
I agree. However not one of the weapons mentioned has been a military grade weapon.. Knowledge in this area will be an asset to you.
it seems to me that you like to decide for others, based on appearance alone, what is OK and not-OK.
to me, the prohibition and availability of *anything* should be based upon a more thorough consideration and contemplations than mere appearance of an item....
Seriously? The appearance of an assault weapon? Not the fact it blow away dozens of people with one pass. What are you thinking?
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.
