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.
Do you really want to come across as unable to differentiate between criminal activity and a Constitutionally protected Right? Are you making an effort to showcase your ignorance? Or just make an ***** of yourself? Either way, it has nothing to do with this Thread.
tehehe,I knew sooner or latter the question of "why not own bombs and nuclear weapons " would come up it usually does,they indiscrimately kill is why,unlike small arms.Plus the whole idea of bringing nulcear weapons into the 2nd amendment debate is unecessary.
But I've already stated my opinion for the most part,I saw some mention of certain types of rifles that I'd like to reply at as a enthusiast.The M1,love it one of my favorites to shoot,very accurate and well balanced,though outdated as compared to current types,though the M14 is making a comeback in Afghan and Iraq.
I saw mention of the AK and M16.The AK is not the most accurate but it is possible to hit with it out to around 300 meters,thank goodness the insurgents don't know marksmanship and use a spray and pray method.It is a very robust and reliable design though.
The M16 (M4),very accurate,with the current optics the military(and civilians) is using on them it is highly possible to hit targets out at 500 meters,not that hard to do at 300 meters with iron sights.The 5.56mm cartridge has limitations at farther ranges though.The civilian versian Ar-15 is used alot for target matches.
Anyway though,long day at work so time to chill.I do say a average citizen who is not a criminal should be trusted with the same smallarms that police and military are...while I commend and respect most who wear a uniform...and I do highly,just because they do wear a uniform doesn't necessarily make them better or more trustworthy.
UB50
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 554
Reputation: 89
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think this has plenty to do with the Second Amendment. If anyone needs guns, it's gang members -- because their enemies are also gang members who have guns.
You probably don't live in LA, but a lot of these "gangster rappers" have security details. Real armed security. Guys in black suits with earpieces and radios who block your path so they can get their SUV convoy into place. Once these guys get enough money to get real security, that's exactly what they do. And it's not without reason since so many of them have been murdered.
I'm somewhat glad to see more of the gangs moving outside of the cities (New York and LA). Guns are easier to get other places. They probably are easier to steal too since more people have them. There isn't much sense in burglarizing a house if all you're going to get out of it is a $20 DVD player and some costume jewelry. You know most people who have one gun (and wear it proudly) probably have a few more, and maybe some ammo and some neat toys. I don't think gang members see guns as deterrents. I think they see them as challenges and prizes to be won."
ub50 wrote the above and i just dont get it??????
??????????????????????????????????
r u kidding me?its the gangsbangers that need guns????
let me remind you that time and time again states supreme courts have decided that the goverment has no responsibliity to protect its citzens .Many have sued their municipalities when the police did not respond to 911 calls and the results are always the same..The goverment has no duty to help you nor do they have to provide us laws that make it possible for us to protect ourselves
tehehe,I knew sooner or latter the question of "why not own bombs and nuclear weapons " would come up it usually does,they indiscrimately kill is why,unlike small arms.Plus the whole idea of bringing nulcear weapons into the 2nd amendment debate is unecessary.
The nuclear weapons always comes up whenever someone enters an argument supporting complete, unrestricted and untraceable access to arms. Allowing citizens, or anyone for that matter, access to nuclear weapons is absurd. So is allowing unrestricted access to arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
But I've already stated my opinion for the most part,I saw some mention of certain types of rifles that I'd like to reply at as a enthusiast.The M1,love it one of my favorites to shoot,very accurate and well balanced,though outdated as compared to current types,though the M14 is making a comeback in Afghan and Iraq.
One thing to shoot an M1, quite another to lug it around. My grandpa has one and holding it gets old after about 5 mins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
I saw mention of the AK and M16.The AK is not the most accurate but it is possible to hit with it out to around 300 meters,thank goodness the insurgents don't know marksmanship and use a spray and pray method.It is a very robust and reliable design though.
Droppable in a tar pit and fired without a jam. Izhmash must be the one Soviet enterprise that mastered the art of good design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
The M16 (M4),very accurate,with the current optics the military(and civilians) is using on them it is highly possible to hit targets out at 500 meters,not that hard to do at 300 meters with iron sights.The 5.56mm cartridge has limitations at farther ranges though.The civilian versian Ar-15 is used alot for target matches.
Anyway though,long day at work so time to chill.I do say a average citizen who is not a criminal should be trusted with the same smallarms that police and military are...
Average citizens should be trusted with arms, and be trusted to register them. Just like their cars, their votes and their marriages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
while I commend and respect most who wear a uniform...and I do highly,just because they do wear a uniform doesn't necessarily make them better or more trustworthy.
Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?
The nuclear weapons always comes up whenever someone enters an argument supporting complete, unrestricted and untraceable access to arms. Allowing citizens, or anyone for that matter, access to nuclear weapons is absurd. So is allowing unrestricted access to arms.
One thing to shoot an M1, quite another to lug it around. My grandpa has one and holding it gets old after about 5 mins.
Droppable in a tar pit and fired without a jam. Izhmash must be the one Soviet enterprise that mastered the art of good design.
Average citizens should be trusted with arms, and be trusted to register them. Just like their cars, their votes and their marriages.
Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?
you got an excuse for everything ..now you cant lug an m1 because after 5minutes of holding it it gets old.
one good thing did come from your post though and ill reprint it below
"Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?"
You aknowledge that profiling is a nessecary evil!
ok,got my hot chocolate and about to cozy up to a good movie but before I do.
quote;Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?
Im not completely understanding that my friend,whats a wifebeater T shirt?
I guess it depends on the situation,during Katrina police and guardsmen went house to house entering without consent,ordering the owners to leave and confiscating their weapons in a time of true crisis,yet many police were unwilling or unable to protect them during the aftermath.
During the L.A riots many had to resort to protecting themselves.So my point is,most who wear a uniform are the good guys,but just like anybody else there can be bad people amongst the good who wear a uniform.
Anyway,Im going to watch a nice peaceful movie maybe Shrek lol!....hmm haven't watched Red Dawn in a while though lol!
Average citizens should be trusted with arms, and be trusted to register them. Just like their cars, their votes and their marriages.
Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?
Cars are not rights, and registration (recording at the court house) of them is just a revenue source.
Technically you do not have to register to vote, you just have to have proof of residence and any other conditions required by that state to cast a ballot. Registration is just the "pre-proving" of meeting the elgibiliy of that state and local to cast a ballot in their location.
Marriages are not "registered" but recorded. Much like births and deaths. It has no bearing on their existance nor are they required, only if you want the benefits offered by the government for being married.
But none of this has any bearing on the Second Amendment, just your musings to try to satisfy your desire to stiffel the Liberty of others to make you "feel" safe or whatever you need is.
There is no benefit to society if guns (or any Right) is restricted/registered/regulated by the government. There is only threat to the Right and the People. If you have to ask permission to use a Right, it is not a Right, but a privilege, to be granted and taken away.
Your comment about the wife-beater T-shirt...what is your point? Those in "uniform" are our servants or employees, not our masters. If they are true to their oaths they are our servants and allies in the defense of Liberty, if they (and they are human) turn away, or are lead away, from their oath, then they are a danger to Liberty.
By the way, get a chance to "re-read" and Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Too busy to gain an education? I understand.....crow is tough at first, but I suspect you have many recipes for it by now
ok,got my hot chocolate and about to cozy up to a good movie but before I do.
quote;Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?
Im not completely understanding that my friend,whats a wifebeater T shirt?
I guess it depends on the situation,during Katrina police and guardsmen went house to house entering without consent,ordering the owners to leave and confiscating their weapons in a time of true crisis,yet many police were unwilling or unable to protect them during the aftermath.
During the L.A riots many had to resort to protecting themselves.So my point is,most who wear a uniform are the good guys,but just like anybody else there can be bad people amongst the good who wear a uniform.
Anyway,Im going to watch a nice peaceful movie maybe Shrek lol!....hmm haven't watched Red Dawn in a while though lol!
then maybe we can get back to explaining are points without the extra comments. for the record guys Ive been on this thread from the start. I believe FFH agrees with you that you have a "right" to possess arms. her main driving point is to register them. that causes shivers upon those that believe registration leads to confiscation. as I do. for those of us that donot want are right to be infringed, we need to curb are passion with logic and convincing actions. Mcviegh used common chemicals for his WMD, not anything like a gun. also many, many armed citizens have aided people in trouble, and even helped out lawenforcement. unlike england where the fact is violent crime went up almost 10% after gun confiscation. and the bobbys had to arm themselves. marsmellows and whip cream anyone?
ok,got my hot chocolate and about to cozy up to a good movie but before I do.
quote;Wow. So if someone with a rifle and a wife-beater T-shirt knocks on your door and yells "Police!", would you consider him trustworthy?
Im not completely understanding that my friend,whats a wifebeater T shirt?
You've seen 'em, the white tank-top commonly worn by balding men with a beer gut. Usually beer-stained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
I guess it depends on the situation,during Katrina police and guardsmen went house to house entering without consent,ordering the owners to leave and confiscating their weapons in a time of true crisis,yet many police were unwilling or unable to protect them during the aftermath.
During the L.A riots many had to resort to protecting themselves.So my point is,most who wear a uniform are the good guys,but just like anybody else there can be bad people amongst the good who wear a uniform.
Anyway,Im going to watch a nice peaceful movie maybe Shrek lol!....hmm haven't watched Red Dawn in a while though lol!
cheers
Just finished a rerun of Fatal Attaction. Shrek or Glenn Close. Ugh.
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.
cocoa break for all!
