Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2013, 12:48 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,846,487 times
Reputation: 7399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike View Post
Don't be so condescending about your knowledge on assault weapons.
My intent is not to be condescending. I'm just sick of people using the term when they don't even know what it means, particularly when they call for tighter restrctions on it. Don't you think it prudent to at least have a basic knowledgle of a thing before you say it needs heavier restrction or banned? It'd be like me saying we need tighter restrictions on nuclear fusion. I wouldn't have the slightest clue what I was talking about and so would have no grounds to call for tighter restrictions.

Quote:
I've seen definitions from the NRA on assault weapons, but they're not a governing body, so their definition has no standing.
I could care less about how the "NRA" would define an assault weapon, the definition I gave you was quoted from a wikipedia article.

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If that isn't credible enough for you, then read the actual text of the failed bill

Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

The bill focuses on cosmetic features of firearms, not the fuinctionality, lethality, or power of firearms. A gun can be more powerful and/or lethal than one that is considered an "assault weapon" and still not be considered an assault weapon itself, and thus, would not be affected by any ban on "assault weapons".

As hard as it may be for you to believe, you are being tricked and fooled. The proof is in the pudding. The answer is right there in those links above, all you have to do is open them and read, and be willing to accept it for what it is. So long as you refuse to educate yourself though, you'll just continue on being uninformed, and a pawn for politicians with an agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2013, 09:38 AM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,881,048 times
Reputation: 7365
Just say No........ When it gets this bad what else can you do? I have seen carrots with more intel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:53 PM
 
Location: The Golden State, USA
957 posts, read 754,236 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
My intent is not to be condescending. I'm just sick of people using the term when they don't even know what it means, particularly when they call for tighter restrctions on it. Don't you think it prudent to at least have a basic knowledgle of a thing before you say it needs heavier restrction or banned? It'd be like me saying we need tighter restrictions on nuclear fusion. I wouldn't have the slightest clue what I was talking about and so would have no grounds to call for tighter restrictions.



I could care less about how the "NRA" would define an assault weapon, the definition I gave you was quoted from a wikipedia article.

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If that isn't credible enough for you, then read the actual text of the failed bill

Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

The bill focuses on cosmetic features of firearms, not the fuinctionality, lethality, or power of firearms. A gun can be more powerful and/or lethal than one that is considered an "assault weapon" and still not be considered an assault weapon itself, and thus, would not be affected by any ban on "assault weapons".

As hard as it may be for you to believe, you are being tricked and fooled. The proof is in the pudding. The answer is right there in those links above, all you have to do is open them and read, and be willing to accept it for what it is. So long as you refuse to educate yourself though, you'll just continue on being uninformed, and a pawn for politicians with an agenda.
The proposed bill looks fine to me. It doesn't ban any of my guns. Someone here was asking if I hunt. Not anymore & when I did I didn't need large capacity magazines or guns that fired every time I pulled the trigger. My bolt action rifle sufficed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 02:03 PM
 
Location: The Golden State, USA
957 posts, read 754,236 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz View Post
Just say No........ When it gets this bad what else can you do? I have seen carrots with more intel.
Just say no to what? When it gets HOW bad?
A few days ago I was out watering my plants in the morning when a black man came by & asked if I minded him getting a drink of water. I asked him if he would like ice. He responded in the affirmative & I went in and got him a glass of ice water. After drinking it, he handed the glass back to me, thanked me & bid farewell. I told him to enjoy his day.
Should I have told him, no, you cannot have a drink of water?
If I were paranoid I could have called 911 and/or gone in and got my gun and shot him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 02:17 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,881,048 times
Reputation: 7365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike View Post
Just say no to what? When it gets HOW bad?
A few days ago I was out watering my plants in the morning when a black man came by & asked if I minded him getting a drink of water. I asked him if he would like ice. He responded in the affirmative & I went in and got him a glass of ice water. After drinking it, he handed the glass back to me, thanked me & bid farewell. I told him to enjoy his day.
Should I have told him, no, you cannot have a drink of water?
If I were paranoid I could have called 911 and/or gone in and got my gun and shot him.
No you could not have gone and got your gun if the 'Black Man' was after you for for your life. You would have needed access to your gun on the instant.

I carry a gun every day, and find myself not in the habit of shooting people each day that passes where I meet some new to me stranger.These strangers never know I have a gun. [MOD CUT] I don't see colors, I see what is the body language of a man, and the man i shot i was white.

The fact is you never once have had to defend yourself or anyone else. The other fact is no one related to you was stabbed to death. I have and I have lost 2 family member to the stabbing to death incident. [MOD CUT]

Please enjoy your day.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 07-16-2013 at 02:40 PM.. Reason: personal attack
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 04:31 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,656,821 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike View Post
The proposed bill looks fine to me. It doesn't ban any of my guns. Someone here was asking if I hunt. Not anymore & when I did I didn't need large capacity magazines or guns that fired every time I pulled the trigger. My bolt action rifle sufficed.
and this post is the problem that many people have. it doesnt affect them so who cares if it passes? well just to give you an education, if that bill had passed, and was upheld at scotus, then YOUR guns were going to be next as there is now precedent to start banning guns that the gun grabbers dont like, which is ALL of them. trust me, give them a foot in the door now, and it wont be too many years down the road until they have busted down your door, and taken EVERY gun you own, and banned you from EVER owning a gun again.

when they started going after cigarettes, we fell back. when they went after trans fats, we fell back, when they went after drunk drivers(good thing), we fell back. when they forced seat belt and helmet laws on us, we fell back. when they started gathering phone records for "information purposes", we fell back. at some point we have to say this far and NO farther.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:38 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,881,048 times
Reputation: 7365
I don't care what you do Mike or what you think for that matter. You have 0 say in what guns I can have and what i use them for. if i want to hunt deer with a 60 cal Nor' West Gun I can, and if i want to hunt deer with a Ak-47 I can. i could care a less what you think.

What makes you so all knowing and god almighty?
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top