U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-05-2019, 09:13 AM
 
10,993 posts, read 2,847,538 times
Reputation: 7447

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with governments exploiting, torturing and murdering their citizens.
Yes, exactly.


It should be very obvious, if a govt is trying to take guns out of the civilians hands...they are NOT concerned about hunting and sport shooting. LOL



Being armed, makes you a threat TO THEM and their control.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:22 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,128 posts, read 34,170,157 times
Reputation: 14444
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Nopbody wants to take your deer rifle. I personally shoot a Ruger #1 in .30-06, and a Remington 788 in .308. I have never seen the day I needed 30 rounds to hunt, however. If I was that poor a shot I would stay home ashamed of my marksmanship and eat squash for dinner.

As to LE and the military - they should have a different class of arms than is available to civilians.
I hunt with my AR's. My AR is my go to Deer/hog/coyote rifle.
I put the bolt action in retirement years ago.
You do you and don't worry about me. I'm not your property.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:26 AM
 
5,079 posts, read 1,895,992 times
Reputation: 4814
There is no need for anyone to possess an assault style weapon. They are not hunting weapons and are solely for the mass destruction of human life.

Anyone that argues that people should have the right to possess these weapons needs to have their mental state questioned.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:43 AM
 
10,993 posts, read 2,847,538 times
Reputation: 7447
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
There is no need for anyone to possess an assault style weapon. They are not hunting weapons and are solely for the mass destruction of human life.

Anyone that argues that people should have the right to possess these weapons needs to have their mental state questioned.
Geez...Our BILL OF RIGHTS gives us this right!!


I have to give credit to the 'deep state', they have definitely succeeded in brainwashing alot of people!!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:45 AM
 
10,478 posts, read 6,370,482 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
There is no need for anyone to possess an assault style weapon. They are not hunting weapons and are solely for the mass destruction of human life.

Anyone that argues that people should have the right to possess these weapons needs to have their mental state questioned.

So, having a semi auto mag fed firearm is okay then ? While full auto or NFA weapons are very expensive I don't think those that collect them have mental issues.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,474 posts, read 10,253,885 times
Reputation: 7197
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with governments exploiting, torturing and murdering their citizens.
I asked you back in post #47 "How big a group do you think that is [wanting or trying to kill you], out of curiosity? And why would anyone want to kill you?"

You ignored me entirely. Care to take a whack at it now, or are you simply afraid of everyone...?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:15 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,049 posts, read 11,921,570 times
Reputation: 10979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
"President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action," Monday's front page reads. "It's time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR."

https://nypost.com/2019/08/04/the-po...t-weapons-now/

The New York Post is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media mogul who keeps in close touch with the president.

This is not the first time the Post has called for such a ban. But it is still striking to see the message on the front page of the paper, where Trump is likely to see it. Trump grew up reading the paper in New York City and continues to receive copies in Washington.

"America is terrified," the editorial reads. "President Trump, you are positioned to assuage that fear. On gun control, you are a pragmatic centrist, someone who knows there is a vast majority of Americans who are not to the extreme left or right on this issue. They just want the killings to stop."
any politician or media outlet that uses the term, 'assault weapon' is a charlatan with self serving political intent, intended to do nothing to stop the next wack job. You can make a case that a ban would be ineffective and allow more innocent lives to be sacrificed by anti gun liberals waiting for the next post ban attack. Perfect opening for more laws and regs to accumulate in their pursuit to achieve the academic theory of, no guns, no gun violence.


The hidden agenda is to ban all semi automatic rifles. Meanwhile criminals and wack jobs who do most of the killing, fail to accept those laws.


The one biggie no one is talking about is the theft of guns from gun shops, cops , armories. Sure theft from private citizens is a variable, but google 'guns stolen from......put in a city or state and see the thousands of guns stolen. Why go after gun shows when stolen guns far outnumber guns purchased in gun shows where a nics check and id is required??????


Take a 2nd look at the fast and furious giveaway by eric holder.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,824 posts, read 49,704,192 times
Reputation: 19281
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
...
1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people.
The 'people' are not mentioned in our oath.



Quote:
... Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.
The US Constitution is no longer taught in public-funded schools, young people enlisting have never been taught the Constitution.



Quote:
... 2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people
You are not seeing what I see.



Quote:
... 3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.
You place 'high tech' as being like magic pixie dust.

A good rifleman with a single-shot rifle can still kill an enemy soldier at distance.

The AK-47 design was designed for un-developed countries to be able to manufacture firearms with minimal infrastructure.

In many ways the AK-47 is far superior to the American M-16 / AR-15.




Quote:
... 4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
'many'? Liberals you mean.



Quote:
Originally Posted by heart84 View Post
History is replete with examples of governments that turned tyrannical. The first step is disarming the public, and thus why the framers crafted the 2nd Amendment.
I agree.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
1) The oath taken by enlisted members:
... They took an oath to follow the command of the POTUS.

I do not believe all military members would follow that order if it meant firing on their own people, but I wouldn't gamble that all of them would lay down their arms.
Good point, sister.



Quote:
... 4) How naive of you to think that not allowing law abiding citizens to have AKs will prevent bad people from getting them. This isn't Unicorn Island. And that argument falls flat on its face every single time. It's stated as if the people who say it actually care about the law abiding citizens, when in reality, it's a pathetic excuse to take guns away from them. No one believes anyone who says, "We just want to prevent the bad guys from getting them" = see: Eric Holder "Fast and Furious". Yeah, he was just so damned concerned, wasn't he? See: Al Quaeda. I wonder who armed them.
True.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:32 PM
 
24,585 posts, read 12,138,020 times
Reputation: 10471
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.


1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.

2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.

3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.

4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
I own about a dozen. All for sale. But only when antigun idiots get into office. Then I will sell them at a substantial markup.

Any weapon I can assault you with is an assault weapon.

Your premise is foolish.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:37 PM
Status: ""making all of his nowhere plans for nobody..."" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Columbia, SC
7,553 posts, read 4,536,508 times
Reputation: 9023
Quote:
Why we don't need Assault Rifles to protect ourselves from Government
Because they have tanks and fighter jets and bombs and missiles too??
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top