flounder1647545522 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I havent posted in a while but figured this was worth it. WTF, read it yourself. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=2 Get em while you still can boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Eric Holder is a worthless piece of shit. And let's do it because MEXICO wants us to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder1647545522 Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 You got it in email as well Putty. Wanted to make sure you didnt miss it. Better get that mini you want ASAP. Ammo is going to get harder to find then it already is and hi cap mags will all but disappear or cost 10X as much. I cant believe he is doing it so quick. there are so many other things that should be his priority before this.. WTF is all I have to say about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Let's hope the Democratic Congress remembers what happened to them when they pulled this shit the last time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akula Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I guess my friend buying his 50 BMG was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiji ST Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm going to get crap for asking this, but why would a private citizen need an assult rifle? I'm looking for valid reasoning other than it's your constitutional right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 This will not go well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 FAIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Ya, i'll get the mini here soon. Ammo prices have almost priced me out of leisure shooting as it is. Any higher in price I am going to build a glass cabinet in the wall and make them display items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder1647545522 Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Ya, i'll get the mini here soon. Ammo prices have almost priced me out of leisure shooting as it is. Any higher in price I am going to build a glass cabinet in the wall and make them display items. Agreed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm going to get crap for asking this, but why would a private citizen need an assult rifle? I'm looking for valid reasoning other than it's your constitutional right. Why not? Do you even know what they are classifying as a assault rifle? ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ This quote is from 1764 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm going to get crap for asking this, but why would a private citizen need an assult rifle? I'm looking for valid reasoning other than it's your constitutional right. Oh gosh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder1647545522 Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm going to get crap for asking this, but why would a private citizen need an assult rifle? I'm looking for valid reasoning other than it's your constitutional right. Why do you need a car capable of going over the speed limit. Get the point?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 We keep getting closer and closer to needing these "high power" weapons. I wonder what the last straw will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why do you need a car capable of going over the speed limit. Get the point?? So you can do wrong, get caught and allow others to profit. I've said it before and will say it again, not much in this country is done without being attached to the almighty dollar. Same goes for legaliztion of weed. We've had these discussions here before. Basically what's happening in Mexico is a good example of what those opposing Assult Weapons are saying. Irrisponisble owners and dealers and in some cases just plain the laws as they are now provide access to these guns by those that shouldn't have them. The whole reason it's going on is tied to drugs and ultimately money. Not that I agree with the approach, but rather than bitch about it and slam a guy here asking a legit question, let's see how many folks can come up with a rational and working soluition. Go ahead impress us.........discuss the cure vs bitching. It will make for a more interesting thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 So you can do wrong, get caught and allow others to profit. I've said it before and will say it again, not much in this country is done without being attached to the almighty dollar. Same goes for legaliztion of weed. We've had these discussions here before. Basically what's happening in Mexico is a good example of what those opposing Assult Weapons are saying. Irrisponisble owners and dealers and in some cases just plain the laws as they are now provide access to these guns by those that shouldn't have them. The whole reason it's going on is tied to drugs and ultimately money. Not that I agree with the approach, but rather than bitch about it and slam a guy here asking a legit question, let's see how many folks can come up with a rational and working soluition. Go ahead impress us.........discuss the cure vs bitching. It will make for a more interesting thread. Yeah, somehow I doubt that the weapons the Mexican cartles are using were purchased legally here. I've seen a video of them spraying a jewelry store with full auto AK style weapons. Those can't easily be purchased here. When gun laws are put in place, gun crime rises. That seems out if something like this is supposed to stop criminals from getting these types of weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 To be honest, in my situation, all of them, beside my pistols were a waste of money. The purchase was just to say I have em. All I do with this is punch holes in paper, in reality throwing money down a lane. I'm willing to say I got them simply because I can. I do nothing with them. I dont even look at em anymore. I dont even think i'll ever use them outside of a controlled environment. I'm more likely to use a pistol than any of my 'assault' rifles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm going to get crap for asking this, but why would a private citizen need an assult rifle? I'm looking for valid reasoning other than it's your constitutional right. The fact of the matter is, the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states: 'The rights of of the people shall NOT be infringed' Regulations = infringment; and I have a problem with that. Again, it goes back to why the 2A was implemented in the first place. The founding fathers put it there so that The People would be just as well armed as the gov't should they need to rise up against tyranny. If you let the gov't legislate out all of your modern firearms, then how are you supposed to control the gov't should the time arise? Are you going to do it with a bolt action .22? Highly doubtful. The gov't knows that a WELL ARMED populous is harder to control. And the gov't doesn't like knowing that they're weaker than The People. A well armed person is a citizen A disarmed person is a subject 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 The fact of the matter is, the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states: 'The rights of of the people shall NOT be infringed' Regulations = infringment; and I have a problem with that. Again, it goes back to why the 2A was implemented in the first place. The founding fathers put it there so that The People would be just as well armed as the gov't should they need to rise up against tyranny. If you let the gov't legislate out all of your modern firearms, then how are you supposed to control the gov't should the time arise? Are you going to do it with a bolt action .22? Highly doubtful. The gov't knows that a WELL ARMED populous is harder to control. And the gov't doesn't like knowing that they're weaker than The People. A well armed person is a citizen A disarmed person is a subject +rep x infinity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 The fact of the matter is, the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states: 'The rights of of the people shall NOT be infringed' Regulations = infringment; and I have a problem with that. Again, it goes back to why the 2A was implemented in the first place. The founding fathers put it there so that The People would be just as well armed as the gov't should they need to rise up against tyranny. If you let the gov't legislate out all of your modern firearms, then how are you supposed to control the gov't should the time arise? Are you going to do it with a bolt action .22? Highly doubtful. The gov't knows that a WELL ARMED populous is harder to control. And the gov't doesn't like knowing that they're weaker than The People. A well armed person is a citizen A disarmed person is a subject You can be my Attorney General when everything is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 we should also be allowed to have anit tank, & anti aircraft arms as well since those are modern day arms needed to keep the government in check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 The fact of the matter is, the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states: 'The rights of of the people shall NOT be infringed' Regulations = infringment; and I have a problem with that. Again, it goes back to why the 2A was implemented in the first place. The founding fathers put it there so that The People would be just as well armed as the gov't should they need to rise up against tyranny. If you let the gov't legislate out all of your modern firearms, then how are you supposed to control the gov't should the time arise? Are you going to do it with a bolt action .22? Highly doubtful. The gov't knows that a WELL ARMED populous is harder to control. And the gov't doesn't like knowing that they're weaker than The People. A well armed person is a citizen A disarmed person is a subject just cause austin needed to be qouted multiple times +1 with his exact point!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 we should also be allowed to have anit tank, & anti aircraft arms as well since those are modern day arms needed to keep the government in check. Shooting clays pigeons with a shotgun gets boring. Sometimes you know when I get a bonus from work, I break out my bazooka. It makes me feel better hitting clays with missiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 we should also be allowed to have anit tank, & anti aircraft arms as well since those are modern day arms needed to keep the government in check. also need projective vehicles right? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00067F1CE/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_60/103-5308504-0068607?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/11/rip_saw_ugv_tank_fast_as_a_mot.html http://www.alpineco.com/inventory/ http://www.customarmoring.com/ 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.