Bignugget 0 #126 January 31, 2013 Rambo is not a B movie. Take that back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #127 January 31, 2013 Quote Personally I think that's kind of a bullshit reason since having "fun" isn't protected the Constitution. Bunch of old guys with little concept of what real fun is. It's unfortunate I know. But, the right to kill people does seem to be protected. Very strange bunch, those guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #128 January 31, 2013 Quote Rambo is not a B movie. Take that back. C movie? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #129 January 31, 2013 Quote Quote Quote A .308 will not only stop a dear dead in its track, but just about anything else and they dont want to ban those. I would rather be shot with an AR-15. Scary looking is not more deadly. If you strip down the scary plastic off of these so called Assault Rifles, they are no more dangerous then a "hunting rifle". Most hunting rifles only hold about 7 rounds...but some can be modified (legally) to hold more. The weapons they want to ban only look more dangerous. . So why do gun buyers want to pay extra for the scary stuff that's non functional? Rambo complex? Penis inadequacy? The guns in question are very fuctional. . But the previous poster said the plastic scary looking stuff isn't; the rifle underneath is what's functional. You guys need to agree on one story and stick to it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #130 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteThey seem to uphold pretty much any and all restrictions placed. Her law "banning all guns" if thats what it said might not pass the test. But you can make it damn near impossible for anyone to legally purchase and possess them, and it will pass the test from the looks of it. You don't take away anyones rights, you just restrict them. SCOTUS is fine with that. Don't shoot me (literally, plz dont), im just a simple googler on the road. You can google all you want, and yes the government has more and more been attempting to restrict everyones rights, not just gun owners. Can they outright ban all weapons? No, that is all I am saying. Can they make it so all you can have is a single shot bb gun? Yes. This is more of a case of 'death by a thousand paper cuts' they will continue restricting rights until it gets to the point that they will have eroded almost all rights which were at one point afforded to the citizens of this nation, and I'm not just talking about gun rights. Look at all of the personal freedoms and privacy rights we decided to give up as a country as soon as we were faced with terrorism on our own soil. It's a slippery slope. But you know what, most people are more than happy to just drone on in life as long as their personal way of life is not affected. Imagine if all of a sudden the government wanted to stop sport parachuting because 'it increased the ability for terrorist to train (on American soil) in insertion techniques and afford them the ability to move into heavily populated city centers or government property with a decreased signature in order to inflict damage and death'. I'm sure you (and I, and everyone on this forum) would suddenly be very interested in that. Bravo! I AGREE Forbid any crazy nut drags kids in a parachute behind a truck to the farm pond. Bingo... it's the chute! Yes didn't they used chutes in WWII to help KILL PEOPLE. We need to ban all parachutes. Bla Bla Bla See how your manley sport would be if under attack that your equipment for participating in the sport was threatend to be restricted or taken from you. NO AR's aren't used only for home protection. We do like to participate in shooting sports with AR's. These anti guns are only thinking about themselves not the kids. If they had any sense they'd be talking door locks and access controls and keeping repeat violent offenders in jail would cure most all of this violent crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #131 January 31, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote A .308 will not only stop a dear dead in its track, but just about anything else and they dont want to ban those. I would rather be shot with an AR-15. Scary looking is not more deadly. If you strip down the scary plastic off of these so called Assault Rifles, they are no more dangerous then a "hunting rifle". Most hunting rifles only hold about 7 rounds...but some can be modified (legally) to hold more. The weapons they want to ban only look more dangerous. . So why do gun buyers want to pay extra for the scary stuff that's non functional? Rambo complex? Penis inadequacy? The guns in question are very fuctional. . But the previous poster said the plastic scary looking stuff isn't; the rifle underneath is what's functional. You guys need to agree on one story and stick to it. I agree. When it comes to restricting types of weapons that are already generally available I think the party line should be a simple and conscise "Fuck You." But, both sides seem to bask in the rhetoric.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
