Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[todski28]

Thanks for giving an explanation for gun violence.

"I say fuck empathy," he says, as he blows people away.

Hahshahahahaha

Nice work
you build that strawman yourself?

 

[KeithD]

Well, it IS your argument, so I guess that fits.

No it wasn't my argument. The stupidity is the weak analogy you tried to make out of it. Obviously. you're quite limited mentally, so can be added to list of those who should never be allowed to have a gun--and can safely go on ignore here.

 

[gunthernehmen]

No it wasn't my argument. The stupidity is the weak analogy you tried to make out of it. Obviously. you're quite limited mentally, so can be added to list of those who should never be allowed to have a gun--and can safely go on ignore here.

Thankfully, the intolerance and ignorance that you show so freely is NOT the law of the land. That would be the Constitution.

(And it was substantially your argument, just turned around)

 

[Hypoxia]

Let's protect liberty, rights, and freedom with ballots, not bullets.

Yes. To defend themselves against "tyranny." I kid you not. I hear it all the time. Individual rights vs. government control.

Only tricked-up assault rifles can defeat UN Black Helicopters, CIA armed drones, US Army lasers, and IRS snoopers?

I worked commo in a US Army division artillery command (DivArty). We had a slogan based on a recent movie blurb-line:

FIELD ARTILLERY MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY "WE MISSED"​

I think crews flying gunships have a similar saying.

 

[todski28]

Let's protect liberty, rights, and freedom with ballots, not bullets.

Only tricked-up assault rifles can defeat UN Black Helicopters, CIA armed drones, US Army lasers, and IRS snoopers?

I worked commo in a US Army division artillery command (DivArty). We had a slogan based on a recent movie blurb-line:

FIELD ARTILLERY MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY "WE MISSED"​

I think crews flying gunships have a similar saying.

Thought the first line is accurate enough, is there no room for an insurance policy? I mean liberty seems to be slipping daily depending on which media you consume or how much time you dedicate to internet theories and main news propaganda. There are parrallells being played out in our current society that mirror past falls into totalitarian regiemes, scare mongering and shutting down peoples rights. Is this rampant defense of guns a cultural problem? What is it if ita in the constitution its sacrosanct?

Not american so please explain, someone feom both sides would be interesting.

As an aside

Lol your sarcastic wit is almost always smile inducing

 

[coachdb18]

Is this rampant defense of guns a cultural problem? What is it if ita in the constitution its sacrosanct?

The 'rampant defense of guns' is NOT a problem, but the rampant assault on our right to bear arms certainly IS a problem. Our Bill of rights is not a granting of rights by our government, they do NOT own those rights nor do they have the authority to dispense or suspend the inherent and pre-existing right of the people. The Bill of Rights is, put in simplest terms, a promise made by the government NEVER to interfere (infringe) with those rights. Our existence as a free people is bound tightly with our Constitution. Many, if not most foreigners have no concept of freedom, and are only as free as the government decides to allow them to be on any given day. Our freedom of self defense, along with religion, speech, assembly, etc were fought for and paid for in blood. I personally took an oath to 'defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic'.

 

[coachdb18]

Except For every state where guns are readily available, like New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, etc. Except for countries like those referenced in the article I cited that you clearly didn't read because you are prejudiced.

I find it totally amazing that the British, who through their global colonialist policies at the point of a gun squelched the rights of most of the planet, are now the most anti-gun bloggers. Seems that taking the natural rights of 3/4 of the planets people was OK, and it was from their abuse that Americans fought for independence from them. They see no need for guns, likely because they wish to subjugate the world with their own guns, and don't wish to have that tradition challenged by people who consider themselves 'free' absent British government permission.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I find it totally amazing that the British, who through their global colonialist policies at the point of a gun squelched the rights of most of the planet, are now the most anti-gun bloggers. Seems that taking the natural rights of 3/4 of the planets people was OK, and it was from their abuse that Americans fought for independence from them. They see no need for guns, likely because they wish to subjugate the world with their own guns, and don't wish to have that tradition challenged by people who consider themselves 'free' absent British government permission.

I don't think they still harbor thoughts of global domination.

It smells more of "I want to control you for your own good".

 

[todski28]

The 'rampant defense of guns' is NOT a problem, but the rampant assault on our right to bear arms certainly IS a problem. Our Bill of rights is not a granting of rights by our government, they do NOT own those rights nor do they have the authority to dispense or suspend the inherent and pre-existing right of the people. The Bill of Rights is, put in simplest terms, a promise made by the government NEVER to interfere (infringe) with those rights. Our existence as a free people is bound tightly with our Constitution. Many, if not most foreigners have no concept of freedom, and are only as free as the government decides to allow them to be on any given day. Our freedom of self defense, along with religion, speech, assembly, etc were fought for and paid for in blood. I personally took an oath to 'defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic'.

I don't think they still harbor thoughts of global domination.

It smells more of "I want to control you for your own good".

This is the current state of politics in my opinion

 

[coachdb18]

This is the current state of politics in my opinion

The old 'now that we own you, you don't NEED a gun' approach... yup....

 

[My I]

Millions of people who live in the US don't own a gun. In the 40 pages of this thread, has anyone given a reason why they NEED a gun?

Read the first post.

 

[Hypoxia]

The Bill of Rights is, put in simplest terms, a promise made by the government NEVER to interfere (infringe) with those rights.

Your arms-bearing facility is already infringed because you're not allowed missiles, nukes, etc, so quit whining. And America once promised the franchise only to white male landowners over 21. Women didn't matter. Slaves were fractional people. Injuns were nothing and sacred treaties with Native American nations were routinely broken.

The nation changes. Laws change. Court rulings change. Change gonna getcha, whitey!

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Read the first post.

I did but I was looking for a rational and intelligent reason. You're just repeating nonsense that assault weapons can't be defined. You're a one trick pony.

 

[KimGordon67]

Except For every state where guns are readily available, like New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, etc. Except for countries like those referenced in the article I cited that you clearly didn't read because you are prejudiced.

I'm not prejudiced. I'm just interested in research which quotes statistical likelihoods rather than comparisons between two cherry-picked examples.

 

[KimGordon67]

Your arms-bearing facility is already infringed because you're not allowed missiles, nukes, etc, so quit whining. And America once promised the franchise only to white male landowners over 21. Women didn't matter. Slaves were fractional people. Injuns were nothing and sacred treaties with Native American nations were routinely broken.

The nation changes. Laws change. Court rulings change. Change gonna getcha, whitey!

No, quite clearly Coach is actually living in the 18th century, when the sun never set on the British Empire. Don't scare him with new fangled stuff!

 

[gunthernehmen]

No, quite clearly Coach is actually living in the 18th century, when the sun never set on the British Empire. Don't scare him with new fangled stuff!

Would this be an example showing your love of research and statistics? ROFL

 

[My I]

I did but I was looking for a rational and intelligent reason. You're just repeating nonsense that assault weapons can't be defined. You're a one trick pony.

Then you really didn't actually READ what it said did you?

Let me answer that question WITH a question... or three... or four.....

Why does anyone NEED a Lamborghini or a Hummer?

Why does anyone NEED a 68 Camaro Z28 with a 427 and a 4 speed?

Why does anyone NEED a 96" TV to watch "reality" shows?

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit? Or $800 shoes?

Why does anyone NEED a Jet-Ski? or a 4-wheeler?

Why does anyone NEED a $10,000 diamond bracelet?

The truth is we don't NEED any of those things. As human beings we need basic food, shelter and enough clothing to keep from freezing to death. Anything beyond that is a personal choice.

Aaaahhhh.... Personal choice. THE very, most BASIC of our rights in The United States of America. We have the freedom to choose the things we like. No one dictates to us what we wear, what we eat, what we drive, what we can say....

Oh... wait... There are people who like to misinform us and say things like "the vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet" and that everyone must stop eating animal based foods. We have people telling us that we can't wear fur or leather. We have people telling us we must drive economical cars. And we have people who tell us that we can't oppose what they say because THEY have freedom of speech. (as if anyone opposed does not)

Those people want to strip your rights from you to force you live THEIR lifestyle whether you want to or not. Forget your basic freedom of choice. They are doing what is "Best" for you. THAT is true fascism, my friends. And it is unconstitutional.

Want to know what else is unconstitutional? Punishing innocent people for the actions of others. What if I took your "smart" phone away from you and told you you could never have another because someone down the street was texting and driving and hit another car and killed 5 people? Would that be fair? What if I took your car and told you you could never drive again because hundreds of thousands of people die in car crashes every year? would that be fair? What about shutting down the internet because some people cyberbully others? Or watch porn? Would that be fair? Or banning fast food restaurants because they cause obesity? Would that be fair?

And now because an insane boy was able to purchase a rifle and shot up a school, you want to take those rifles away from law abiding, perfectly sane people. And further, you want to force people to have psychological exams to even purchase a gun. What other right in our constitution requires that? Do you have to prove you are sane or even know what you are talking about before you can stage a public protest/march/rally?

Perhaps you should have to. Given the amount of misinformation (and flat out lies) that are spread, maybe that would be best. Or maybe we just make it a Federal Felony Offense to knowingly spread misinformation in public forums/media/gatherings.

Tell you what I'll do. I'll give if you do. I'll accept a ban on the so called assault weapons if YOU accept a ban on cellular devices that can be operated while traveling at more than 3mph.

But I know you won't. Because YOU have rights. YOU have freedom of choice. And you don't mind trampling everyone else's rights and freedoms as long as you get to keep yours.

So here's a simpler solution. Why don'r we ALL stop destroying things just because we don't personally like them? That sounds fair to me. How 'bout you?

Show me where I said ANYthing about "assault weapons can't be defined". Then see if you can figure out what the REAL point of the post was. I've tried to redirect the conversation to it about 20 times now but you Libs just avoid it and redirect to other bullshit again.

FUCK the stats. Banning guns breaks half the amendments in the bill of rights and another if I use the LIBERAL definition.

You're a dumbass.

 

[My I]

Would this be an example showing your love of research and statistics? ROFL

And there you have your average Liberal. They tell you their a fucking genius while acting like ignorant 8 yr olds.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes. To defend themselves against "tyranny." I kid you not. I hear it all the time. Individual rights vs. government control.

And we all know how much you hate individual rights in favor of government control.

I did but I was looking for a rational and intelligent reason. You're just repeating nonsense that assault weapons can't be defined. You're a one trick pony.

Is self defense not a rational and intelligent reason?

If 4 thugs broke into your house right now and they are armed, ready to violate you and take your property what do you do?

Call 911 and hope for the best?

 

[WandaGrabowski]

And we all know how much you hate individual rights in favor of government control.



Is self defense not a rational and intelligent reason?

If 4 thugs broke into your house right now and they are armed, ready to violate you and take your property what do you do?

Call 911 and hope for the best?

Your answer proves that you're motivated by fear.

 

[phrodeau]

And we all know how much you hate individual rights in favor of government control.



Is self defense not a rational and intelligent reason?

If 4 thugs broke into your house right now and they are armed, ready to violate you and take your property what do you do?

Call 911 and hope for the best?

Grab a fire extinguisher.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your answer proves that you're motivated by fear.

Non-response.

I asked you if self defense is not a rational and intelligent reason to arm oneself or not.

Can you answer that?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Grab a fire extinguisher.

Why?

Bad guy extinguisher is much better suited for the task at hand.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Your answer proves that you're motivated by fear.

Being prepared to defend yourself is common sense, not fear.

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Non-response.

I asked you if self defense is not a rational and intelligent reason to arm oneself or not.

Can you answer that?

That depends on your perception of the threat and the degree of weaponry you believe is required to deal with that threat.