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 11-28-2007, 01:51 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519

Advertisements

http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/eqmilitar/fotos/eqmilitar104116_1.jpg (broken link)

http://www.moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt/images/gun/3006.jpg (broken link)

Of the two shown above,which is more dangerous and should have been banned?

I am often puzzled by those in favor of banning particular types of firearms as it seems their knowledge on the subject is extemely lacking...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2007, 01:53 PM
 
Location: C.R. K-T
6,202 posts, read 11,452,611 times
Reputation: 3809
It's not like our side would take away your guns but your pals might. Read H.R. 1955 and S. 1959. What good will your gun be when tanks are rolling down the street and the army is collecting guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 01:55 PM
 
Location: DFW, TX
2,935 posts, read 6,716,398 times
Reputation: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
It's not like our side would take away your guns but your pals might. Read H.R. 1955 and S. 1959. What good will your gun be when tanks are rolling down the street and the army is collecting guns.
Dunno... the "terrorists" in Iraq are managing to do plenty of damage without advanced weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 01:56 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
It's not like our side would take away your guns but your pals might. Read H.R. 1955 and S. 1959. What good will your gun be when tanks are rolling down the street and the army is collecting guns.
Who is your side?
Who are my pals?

How would the Army know from whom to collect the guns?

The tanks would do a number on the streets too,ever seen what tracks do to pavement?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 01:58 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
Dunno... the "terrorists" in Iraq are managing to do plenty of damage without advanced weapons.

Shhh, do not point out how according to the left's own statements, a group of poorly armed men are causing the US military to be bogged down in a quagmire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Hernando County, FL
8,489 posts, read 20,643,615 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/eqmilitar/fotos/eqmilitar104116_1.jpg (broken link)

http://www.moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt/images/gun/3006.jpg (broken link)

Of the two shown above,which is more dangerous and should have been banned?

I am often puzzled by those in favor of banning particular types of firearms as it seems their knowledge on the subject is extemely lacking...
There is not enough information given to make a valid assessment but my guess is this was not the reason for your post anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:02 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Well are you a proponent of gun control?

If so,which one should be banned/is more dangerous(why else would you ban one and not the other)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:06 PM
 
Location: California
11,466 posts, read 19,351,670 times
Reputation: 12713
Really there is no differance in them unless one can shoot auto. It's funny that they ban a gun by it's looks, My Ranch rifle shoots .223 and is semi auto but I guess it doesn't look threatening. Gun bans are stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:08 PM
 
9,725 posts, read 15,171,221 times
Reputation: 3346
Is this a trick question? One of them is a toy, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,330,946 times
Reputation: 15291
(Impersonating a Liberal)

Oh, it's the top one! It's an assault rifle! It looks mean! It has holes in it! Oliver Stone used it to kill Vietnamese civilians in his movies! And look how big that magazine is! The bottom one is woody. It looks old-fashioned. It's for hunting. The top one would probably blow up a deer with one shot!
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. The time now is 04:49 PM.

© 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