RangerTurbo Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 double post, but I own the second and third page. Going to bed (Im in Holland), so I'll catch this thread tomarrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 damn tim your thinking is scary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 why don't you explain to me what useful purpose you would have owning a fully auto M16? do you use this type of weapon in your daily contributions to the world around you? why don't you explain to me what useful purpose you would have owning a supercharged car? do you use this type of vehicle in your daily contributions to the world around you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 David Koresh was a psyco fuck-tard that contibuted nothing good to the world. The Branch Davidians are a sect of religious freaks too and even they never accepted his fucked up role as leader. So in other words, the crazy fucks on one side even said he was a dumb ass. I feel bad for all those weak minded folks that he called students....but hey, Darwin rules. Same can be said about Scientology. Can we send in the feds to go and slaughter them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 do you use this type of vehicle in your daily contributions to the world around you? Yes Same can be said about Scientology. Can we send in the feds to go and slaughter them all? Very yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Yes NO because it hurts the environment and uses too many fossil fuels! What right do you have to hurt the environment that everyone uses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Oh, and is it right if the feds can go storm buildings and kill people just because they believe in things outside the norm (using Scieno's as an example)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 In summary for point number one: We drive fast cars because they are more fun than slow cars, although there is no other valid reason for having them. People enjoy shooting full auto guns because they are more fun than slow semi auto guns, although threre is no other valid reason for having them. I would also like to point out that in the past year in Columbus, more people have died from racing wrecks than from automatic weapons. Now tell me which is more dangerous? edit: triple post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
04r1 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Im gonna purchase 2 guns tomorrow morning now instead of 1 in support of this thread!!! I will make sure 1 is something that is not practical and semi automatic :bangbang: :bangbang: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 You miss the point.....tell me your thoughts as to why you feel the guns were removed. Are you saying that Big Brother was there to simply squash the common folk for the heck of it or do you not see the real reasons why? Hah, you missed the entire point. It was illegal search and seisure, no other way to put it. Your irrelavent spin about a G.I. just handing out guns isn't what we are even talking about anyhow. Just cause I own guns doesn't mean I'm going to give them out freely if the SHTF either. The right to bear arms isn't about arming your fellow man, it's about the right to keep arms yourself. Don't misconstrue the issue. No, more like law abiding citizens in a decent area that post not threat regardless of their color equals no where near the threat that the folks in New Orleans did in that situation. If you can't see the difference or the point I'm making then you're blind. So, Rich and White, we won't take your guns. Black and Poor, you have no rights. Got it! I've already said I wouldn't give a shit if what they did in New Orleans happened if I were there. Apply the same precautions then....in the case we're discussing, I think they took appropriate precautions removing any potential threat from the hands of a very highly opposite environment of people that should be carrying firearms in that situation. I also like your 'play down' of the words 'as much of an issue'. Its either an issue or not. If there is even a little bit of crime in an 'affluent community' the same precautions should be taken regardless. Well, I'll come down to your compound and joint the cult when the entire nation breaks down. I'm sure you're preparing for the reality based movie Road Warrior as we speak. I'd say, that if the whole country were to experience a break down such as that, then that would be the EXACT time self protection and preservation requiring one's guns would be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 I don't need to answer it. You seem to feel you have the answer as to why a FA weapon would be no less of a threat or can inflict no more harm, so then why should he have one if it has no clear legal purpose? Fully auto assault weapons serve as a much greater threat and that alone is reason enough to ban them from the general public. Especially from the hands of someone who isn't meant to use it as intended. That is unless you want to proclaim yourself a SWAT team member or member of our Military fighting a war. Should he go ape shit or his kid go to a school with it or it get stolen from his house, I think having the ability to rapid-fire the volume such a weapon can discharge without having to actually aim it or have much skill, it's ability to be reloaded more easily and high power makes them a bit more of danger. But hey, in your world, why don't we just give everyone grenades and land mines and remove all DUI related laws too....because as you're implying we all know such things are unnecessary and that the country would be such a better place rolling back the laws and living like the rebels in the Middle East. I also ask, again, since you can't answer the question the first two times. What about his location makes any difference to having a FA? Once he hits the 'burbs' he automatically goes ape shit and starts involuntarily shooting up the kids and creating rivers of blood in the streets? Since you're using cliche's (Just because one can, doesn't mean they should), more people will be killed this year by drunk drivers using a car than there will be by someone using a gun. Let's ban all cars shall we, cause you know, drunk driving is illegal and works as a law already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Cars don't have an intended purpose of killing people....guns do. So considering adding a supercharger or a V8 to a vehicle doesn't change it's intended purpose of going from A to B with any more lethal of an intention, whereas a FA weapon is designed strictly to kill more effectively I don't see why you're asking the question. why don't you explain to me what useful purpose you would have owning a supercharged car? do you use this type of vehicle in your daily contributions to the world around you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 if they start raping little girls, stockpiling weapons and teaching their followers that the gov't is their enemy, and all the other things DK did, then I vote to stop them before the kool-aid is spread too far. Same can be said about Scientology. Can we send in the feds to go and slaughter them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 You're on to something here....the same reason the Weapons manufacturers and the NRA hate bans like this is for the very same reason the gas companies and gov't don't want alternative fuels to be introduced.....money....pure and simple. I don't buy for one minute the folks lobbying on either side give a shit about rights or life, they care about the money. NO because it hurts the environment and uses too many fossil fuels! What right do you have to hurt the environment that everyone uses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 The ATF raided the Waco compound to serve arrest and search warrants as part of an ongoing investigation into their illegal possession of firearms and stockpiling of explosives. It had nothing to do with someone just saying they didn't approve of something "out of the norm" Oh, and is it right if the feds can go storm buildings and kill people just because they believe in things outside the norm (using Scieno's as an example)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 All those who died and killed people in street racing situations in Columbus added together barely add up to the potential ability of inflicting more harm than a single fully automatic weapon in the hands of the wrong person. Given the odds I'd much rather have my neighbors kid crash his Integra into my living room vs the same odds of the damage he could inflict by going ape shit with is dads FA assault rifle and shooting up my house. Now tell me which is more dangerous? edit: triple post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Don't read too much into it. If a purposely posted thread sparking conversation/debate doesn't have a counterpoint, then everyone is just going to sit around and make manly grunts in unison and that would be pretty boring. damn tim your thinking is scary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Cars don't have an intended purpose of killing people....guns do. pretty sure guns don't do anything unless someone pulls the trigger:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 True, but the point is cars are not designed to be weapons. Guns are and the FA weapons are designed for killing efficiency, their use was never for intended for recreational use. Believe me, I'm not afraid of guns. I own several. I'm afraid of certain guns in the hands of citizens that think they are gun experts when there's no real purpose of them even owning a FA assault weapon. I can't control the actions of a criminal who may be carrying a loaded handgun, but I sure don't want to allow them more ready access to a FA weapon to use instead. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The right to bear arms doesn't mean we're all going to lug around rocket launchers but how many are pissed about that. All said, there are limits to the amount of risks we should be exposed to. Everyone here has a car that will go 100mph, but there are laws against it. Why are those laws in place? pretty sure guns don't do anything unless someone pulls the trigger:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 OMG is has POTENTIAL to kill!!!! So does 98% of the shit you buy, if used improperly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimmer95 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 A basic hunting rifle has much more potential for killing in the hands of a nut job. They could run around picking off folks one at a time from 1/8 mile away easily. The morons usually just head to a nice safe "gun free zone" and shoot as many people as possible at once because they know they'll be (in)famous for it. That type would actually be less effective with a full auto weapon because an untrained shooter won't know how to handle the muzzle climb, so they'd put a couple rounds in to a victim and dump the rest of the mag up the wall and ceiling behind them. Regardless, legally registered full auto guns have been used in exactly two murders since 1934. As far as New Orleans, I don't think anyone would have had a problem with the police disarming looters and criminals. However, that's not what they did. They went house to house and took the guns from law abiding home owners who needed them more than ever to defend themselves from the dirtbag looters. Have you not watched the video of the cops barging in to a house, knocking down an old lady and taking her gun? Oh, this all was totally reasonable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 True, but the point is cars are not designed to be weapons. Guns are and the FA weapons are designed for killing efficiency, their use was never for intended for recreational use. Believe me, I'm not afraid of guns. I own several. I'm afraid of certain guns in the hands of citizens that think they are gun experts when there's no real purpose of them even owning a FA assault weapon. I can't control the actions of a criminal who may be carrying a loaded handgun, but I sure don't want to allow them more ready access to a FA weapon to use instead. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The right to bear arms doesn't mean we're all going to lug around rocket launchers but how many are pissed about that. All said, there are limits to the amount of risks we should be exposed to. Everyone here has a car that will go 100mph, but there are laws against it. Why are those laws in place? Laws to ban machine guns are hilarious. If someone is willing to kill someone, do you really think they're going to care if the firearm they're using to do it is legal? Give me a fucking break. The current laws for owning a legit machine gun are fine - they simply need to allow them to be produced again so prices aren't so high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimmer95 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 As an example of full auto guns not being perfect killing machines, take a look back at the North Hollywood Bank of America robbery in '97. Two guys with full body armor and three illegally modified machine guns (an AR-15, a HK91 and and AKM) fired ~1300 rounds and the only two people to die that day were the scumbags themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 As an example of full auto guns not being perfect killing machines, take a look back at the North Hollywood Bank of America robbery in '97. Two guys with full body armor and three illegally modified machine guns (an AR-15, a HK91 and and AKM) fired ~1300 rounds and the only two people to die that day were the scumbags themselves. OMG, the humanity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conesmasher Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Driving in a car presents much more of a threat to my daily life, than does those who own a gun legally, or illegally. Look at what kills more people in America.......the car.....or the gun. It's about freedom......freedom from the government.....freedom from your neighbor.....and the freedom to make your life what you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.